Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Politics Government Entertainment Games

Schwarzenegger's Appeal of CA Games Bill Under Fire 63

Posted by Zonk from the he-should-be-used-to-it dept.
The CA games bill struck down last week to cheers is currently in a holding pattern as Governor Schwarzenegger works on an appeal. His decision to fight the judiciary is coming under fire from several sources. The ESA has mounted a campaign against the initiative through its Videogame Voters Network. Even the media is objecting, with an opinion in the LA Times telling the governor not to bother. "Having made a career off fantasy violence, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is an odd advocate for the regulation of violent video games. After all, his face (and, sometimes, his voice) helps to sell a number of electronic kill-fests. Yet there he was last week, pledging to appeal a federal judge's decision against a state law banning the sale of such games to minors."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Schwarzenegger's Appeal of CA Games Bill Under Fire More

Schwarzenegger's Appeal of CA Games Bill Under Fire

Comments Filter:

  • Hm. (Score:2, Funny)

    by morari ( 1080535 )
    I am consistently pleased that I do not live in California, their politicians only help stress that feeling.

    • I am consistently pleaesd that I do not live in the United States, their politicians only help stress that feeling.
      FTFY.

      Both are nice places, you just have to ignore those screwballs who think they're running the show.

  • One one article points out it's wasting tax dollars but is there anything you Californians out there think is more important than video game viloence in your state that tax dollars would be better spent fighting on?

    Governors get paid with your tax dollars after all so isn't their time worth your money?

    • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

      by garnetlion ( 786722 )

      is there anything you Californians out there think is more important than video game viloence in your state that tax dollars would be better spent fighting on?

      Yes. Just about anything else. California, especially the northern portion, is fairly environmentally conscious. I think most residents (and clearly, being a lone Californian entitles me to speak for all Californians) would prefer to see it go to, say, environmental cleanup efforts or maintaining the roads or even something as crazy liberal as low

    • I know California-bashing is the past-time of resentful red-staters and yokels, but this is neither the only nor the first such anti-violent-videogame legislation to come down the pike. Here [gamepolitics.com] is a helpful map and article.

      I think videogames should be protected as speech. The trouble is, speech isn't really protected as speech, either. The distribution of sexually-explicit materials is controlled and restricted throughout the country, as are original derivative (not an oxymoron) works that are held to violate
      • Actually, it's not hypocritical at all, it's just that so many of these bills have been struck down by now that you'd think the state would just let it go, much like Utah did when their attorney general pointed out that the legislation wouldn't hold up in court. On the other hand, I haven't seen any of the defeats appealed, so perhaps it's a fight worth fighting (assuming you want games regulated any more than they currently are).

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Abreu ( 173023 )
          As long as introducing ludicrous "think of the children" bills is profitable to politicians, there will be more and more videogame regulation bills.

      • I'll be more impressed by gamers who are also willing to advocate for the revocation of obscenity statutes and to advocate for the legal, unrestricted sale of pornography to minors.

        I'm all for it. What kids see or don't see is a private issue for families. Besides, when was the last time you met a teenager who hadn't ever seen/heard/done stuff their parents didn't want them to? We got our hands on all the porn we wanted, and there was no internet! Not to mention alcohol, drugs, violent video games, and

  • Coming soon: Schwarzenegger: 0, Judiciary: 1 (Score:3, Insightful)

    by MMaestro ( 585010 ) on Monday August 13, 2007 @06:49PM (#20218121)
    Seriously, anti-video game bills are getting shot down left and right these days. With the media having a ball with Schwarzenegger painting himself as a hypocrite for casting in a number of games and local courts around the country refusing to even bother involving the Supreme Court, this bill is never going to pass.

    • Re:Coming soon: Schwarzenegger: 0, Judiciary: 1 (Score:5, Funny)

      by enderjsv ( 1128541 ) on Monday August 13, 2007 @06:54PM (#20218181)
      I'm in the minority here. I actually WANT children to be prevented from buying M-rated games by any means necessary. I'm tired of getting my ass handed to me by six year olds. For god's sake, go finger-paint.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by grumbel ( 592662 )
      Question from somebody not living in the USA: Why is banning porn ok and banning violence a violation of the Constitution?
      • Because the US was partially settled and founded by a fanatical religious sect that was fleeing a crackdown in England after it had assassinated the English king?

        I recently listened to a radio report where it was observed how strange American sentimentalization about Puritans is to many English people, considering the were their era's Al Qaeda in some ways.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by Toonol ( 1057698 )
        Banning porn is a violation of the constitution, but we've never had a Supreme Court that's brave enough to actually rule that way. So we ban it, and ignore the fact that we're censoring.
      • Well, I feel the need to clarify a bit. Banning porn IS a violation of the constitution. That's why it's not banned. It's just illegal for people under a certain age to purchase it. That's not a ban like, say, what England is doing to Manhunt 2. That particular ban actually makes it illegal for any store to sell it to anyone of any age. That's a ban.

      • Question from somebody not living in the USA: Why is banning porn ok and banning violence a violation of the Constitution?
        Answer from somebody living in the USA: You're starting with a false premise. Both have been struck down as violating the Constitution.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Bombula ( 670389 )
      I'm not one for prohibition, but I don't recall there being much fuss when the film and television rating system was introduced. It therefore seems strange how resistant people are to the idea of rating video games and holding vendors accountable for sales according to those ratings, just like films and TV. Gaming is, after all, a much more active, participatory form of entertainment than film or TV. As far as I know, the jury is still somewhat out on whether or not violent, graphic games contribute to a

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by enderjsv ( 1128541 )
        I don't understand your point. There IS a ratings system in place. It's called the ESRB. Nobody has a problem with there being a ratings system. The question is should that rating system be regulated and mandated by the U.S. government? Currently, there is no similar government mandation that I am aware of in reference to the movie industry or the music industry. Such government intrusion would be unprecidented.
      • There may not have been much fuss when the film rating system was introduced; after all, it allowed more freedom of expression than the Hayes Code. There have been fusses of various sorts since. One of them replaced informal X ratings with formal NC-17s; this didn't destigmatize the rating. (X didn't start with a stigma, but after the mid-'70s, it got one.) PG-13 was invented because people were starting to make hard-PG films that were too close to the '80s R standard. And, for some reason, filmmakers

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Daetrin ( 576516 )
          It was determined then that, even when the ratings are being enforced, anyone can get into an R-rated movie as long as a parent comes along. Church groups took advantage of that loophole, and on occasion, younger members of the congregation suffered for it.

          Uh, that's not a "loophole," nor was it some kind of secret. It's an intended feature and a well known one, or at least it should be. The purpose of ratings is to inform people, especially parents, about the contents of a movie so they can make appropri

          • True--if the MPAA did declare unilaterally that kids couldn't see R-rated films, that would make them no different than NC-17-rated films. The suggested age cut-off is nearly the same, after all.
            The problem is that it's not certain that the method of determining what should be R and what should be NC-17 is fair. A film can get NC-17 for moderate sex or nudity--no worse than what married couples or promiscuous teens have already seen in the flesh. But a film can be extremely gory and still be rated R; wh
            • Unless I'm mistaken, the MPAA can only suggest what age is appropriate for a particular movie.

              There is no law behind the rating system, it is up to the individual movie theater (or chain) to enforce those recommendations .

              • But there are often local laws related to those recommendations--at least for NC-17 films. Newspapers are forbidden to advertise those films, at all; this means a chain can't show them, or else everything in the multiplex will suffer.
                Think of it this way. The sexual offender list itself "isn't punishment," which is why it's still legal; it just happens that there are a lot of local and state laws punishing people who happen to be on that list. The regulations attached to NC-17 films are of a similar nat
  • "I vas just doing it for the money." Now he's a "public servant." Makes a big difference in attitudes.
    • Not only that, but most of the games he played roles in were based off his movies, which were rated PG-13 or R, so one assumes any parent with half a brain wouldn't buy the game title of the same name for little timmy the five year old. Honestly, just because he's in violent games doesn't mean he wants those games being played by minors. They're two completely different things.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by sehlat ( 180760 )
        "just because he's in violent games doesn't mean he wants those games being played by minors"

        The problem is, as the court noted, just WHICH minors are you talking about?

        The ones banned by NC-17? The ones banned by R? The ones banned by PG-13?

        Every single bill that's been struck down makes NO differentiation between seventeen-year-olds and three-year-olds. After all, they're both "under 18."

        By the way, you might not want to buy "Peter Rabbit" for little Timmy the five-year-old, it does, after all, laud the a
    • "Having made a career off fantasy violence,... I vas just doing it for the money." Now he's a "public servant." Makes a big difference in attitudes.

      Wikipedia shows the Terminator games as being rated Teen or Mature. Restricting sales to minors based upon these ratings is no different than restricting a minor's entrance into a theater based upon moving ratings. The is no hypocracy here unless you find Arnold arguing that little kids should be able to watch the Terminator movie without a parent's approval

      • Re:No hypocracy, game ratings like movie ratings (Score:4, Insightful)

        by Chris Burke ( 6130 ) on Monday August 13, 2007 @07:22PM (#20218515) Homepage
        Restricting sales to minors based upon these ratings is no different than restricting a minor's entrance into a theater based upon moving ratings.

        So you mean it should be a voluntary restriction enforced solely by the game retailers, with zero force of law?

        I agree completely. And in which case there's no point in the Governator even being involved.

        That's where the hypocrisy is. Call me when Arnold starts campaigning to make it illegal to let minors into R rated movies, then he'll be consistent. Until then, he's a hypocrite.
        • "Restricting sales to minors based upon these ratings is no different than restricting a minor's entrance into a theater based upon moving ratings."

          So you mean it should be a voluntary restriction enforced solely by the game retailers, with zero force of law? I agree completely. And in which case there's no point in the Governator even being involved. That's where the hypocrisy is. Call me when Arnold starts campaigning to make it illegal to let minors into R rated movies, then he'll be consistent. Unt
          • As I pointed out there is no hypocrisy, he wants access to both violent movies and violent video games limited. Who gets to enforce things, theaters/retailers or law enforcement, does not change this underlying belief. You are merely bringing up an implementation detail, an important one but still only a detail. Which ever way this detail goes does not change the underlying belief so there is no hypocrisy here.

            BS. He is not involved in movie violence at all. His "belief" does not extend to movies, as he i
            • He is not involved in movie violence at all. His "belief" does not extend to movies, as he is taking zero action to limit access to movies.

              Access to movies is already limited, people perceive no need for action.

              Whereas for games he's going far past voluntary policies to a law barring sales to minors.

              That is not hypocrisy, that is overzealousness. There are many valid criticisms of this overzealousness, you offer some of them, but your emotions seems to have made you get hung up on an inappropria
              • Access to movies is already limited, people perceive no need for action.

                Right, people see a voluntary rating system that anyone with two brain cells knows is barely enforced as being completely adequate. Access is not limited in any realistic sense. But when the subject is games, then suddenly you need laws on the books where the government defines what is suitable for minors and punishes retailers for violating those standards.

                That's blatant hypocrisy.

                Calm yourself and consider this. If there were a comp

      • Re:No hypocracy, game ratings like movie ratings (Score:4, Informative)

        by despisethesun ( 880261 ) on Monday August 13, 2007 @07:29PM (#20218597)
        It's worth noting that the MPAA's rating system (and the enforcement thereof) is voluntary. If he were arguing for the MPAA's rating system to have legal enforcement as well, there would be no hypocrisy but he's not.
        • despisethesun wrote:

          If he were arguing for the MPAA's rating system to have legal enforcement as well, there would be no hypocrisy but he's not.

          Why is someone a hypocrite for campaigning for a single issue at a time? Is everyone who doesn't push for simultaneous and linked legislation on every possible permutation of their belief a hypocrite?

          Further, why shouldn't video games, which are actively participated in by the player; be considered on their own merits seperate from a movie, which is passive entertainment?

          The way I see it:
          Active Participation + Low Community Standards = Government Steps In.
          Passive Viewing + Hig

          • Schwarzanegger isn't "campaigning for a single issue". He's campaigning against video game violence while deflecting questions about the violent movies he starred in. It's not quite the same as someone who is pro-gun control not campaigning for the environment.

            And "Active Participation + Low Community Standards" is a blatant falsehood. This isn't 1993, the ESRB is arguably stricter and more consistent in its application of ratings than the MPAA, Hot Coffee not withstanding.
            • despisethesun wrote:

              Schwarzanegger isn't "campaigning for a single issue". He's campaigning against video game violence while deflecting questions about the violent movies he starred in.

              So, because he's campaigning about video games, and not taking questions about movies, he's "not campaigning for a single issue"? Huh?

              And "Active Participation + Low Community Standards" is a blatant falsehood. This isn't 1993, the ESRB is arguably stricter and more consistent in its application of ratings than the MPAA, Hot Coffee not withstanding.

              Yes but, the local video game store isn't enforcing the ESRB ratings the way a theater commonly does the MPAA ratings. So it is not a "blatant falsehood"; and perhaps you should consider such before resorting to "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!" as a reply.

              ~Rebecca

              • Yes but, the local video game store isn't enforcing the ESRB ratings the way a theater commonly does the MPAA ratings. So it is not a "blatant falsehood"; and perhaps you should consider such before resorting to "Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire!" as a reply.

                I haven't seen any kind of scientific study of either theatre or game store policies recently, so I can only go on anecdotal evidence.

                I haven't been carded at a movie theatre since I was 16. If I go into Gamestop, I usually get carded, even though I certain

              • Re: (Score:2)

                by Drathos ( 1092 )
                When I worked at a Suncoast a few years ago, we weren't allowed to ask for ID for the purposes of age verification. Because of that rule, there was no real check for selling R movies to minors. Sure, we could chase kids out of the Playboy section (they were generally the only people who gawked at the DVDs there), but to ask little Timmy if he was 17 when he went to buy a movie like Hostel was strictly verboten. Our district manager (who's office was in our back room) would constantly remind anyone who tr

              • So, because he's campaigning about video games, and not taking questions about movies, he's "not campaigning for a single issue"? Huh?

                The two media are related. Your denial of that fact doesn't change it, and the arguments against video game violence are no different than the ones leveled against movies in the 80's and 90's. "You're watching the violence happen, it's not the same as reading it in a book!"

                Yes but, the local video game store isn't enforcing the ESRB ratings the way a theater commonly does t

  • Save some scorn for Leland Yee (D) (Score:1, Informative)

    by Anonymous Coward
    Sponsor of this odious law. After writing the Gov, you should find out what you can do to get him out of office. If your partisanship allows.

  • Schwarzenegger's Appeal of CA Games Bill Under Fir (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Monday August 13, 2007 @07:20PM (#20218493)
    When asked for comments the Governator's spokesmen replied: "He did it for the lulz".

  • Oblig Futurama Quote (Score:4, Funny)

    by Zackbass ( 457384 ) on Monday August 13, 2007 @08:07PM (#20219041)
    "Bender should not be on TV!" - Bender

  • My objection to the law, and to Arnold's appeal of the ruling, is that the law doesn't do anything about the problem it purports to address. Sure, it bans the sale of certain games to minors. As a practical matter, most stores won't sell those games to minors anyway. And in every case that's come up as the motivation for these laws, the stores didn't sell the games to a minor. They sold the game to a legal adult, most often a parent of the minor involved, and that adult then gave the game to the minor. Now,

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Vicegrip ( 82853 )
      Arnold is doing this to manage his image. That is all. This is yet more legislation that won't do anything other than get him a lot of media notes about "the governor trying to protect kids". And perhaps, more importantly, shore up support amongst conservative voters upset some of his other stances.

      It's also another nice deflector issue he can use to talk about instead of the hard-core financial ones gripping California right now. Don't wanna answer the tough questions? Solution is come up with useless cra

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by gilroy ( 155262 )

      If the stores aren't supposed to sell those games to minors, why are adults who give the games to minors exempt?

      Because what you suggest involves telling the citizenry that raising well-adjusted, normal children is somehow their (the parents') responsibility. You never lose an election telling the voters that some faceless Enemy is threatening their way of life. You never win an election by telling the voters it's all their fault.
  • "Schwarzeneger's official response to the criticism was, 'I'll be back'"

Slashdot Top Deals

He has not acquired a fortune; the fortune has acquired him. -- Bion

Close