News

California judge wants violent games for minors

You are here: blasteroids.com / news / california judge wants violent games for minors /

Latest news | News archive | Search news

Not registered yet? Register here.

Davedough @ Aug 07, 2007 22:27 | 15 comments

A federal court ruling that has been enacted in California since 2005 stating that video games should be labeled depending on content and are not allowed to be sold to minors was overturned by a federal judge today. The judge cited the original law as unconstitutional. Almost immediately, the Governator, Arnold Schwarzenegger said that he would do what he could to immediately appeal the ruling.

Governor Schwarzenegger had given a great deal of support towards the original 2005 bill, regardless of the fact that he, himself has appeared in a number of violent feature films. Legislators of the time argued that violence in video games could lead to psychological harm and give way to violent and irrational behavior.

The Video Software Dealers Association and the Entertainment Software Association had quickly sued to try and Block the bill, stating that video games and their content is protected under the First Amendment and therefore should not be censored or denied to a consumer demographic.

Judge Ronald Whyte who oversaw and granted the injunction stated, "At this point, there has been no showing that violent video games as defined in the Act, in the absence of other violent media, cause injury to children. In addition, the evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, Internet sites or other speech-related exposures. Although some reputable professional individuals and organizations have expressed particular concern about the interactive nature of video games, there is no generally accepted study that supports that concern."

Schwarzenegger who signed the original bill instituting the law had this to say about the recent decision, "I signed this important measure to ensure that parents are involved in determining which video games are appropriate for their children. Many of these games are made for adults and choosing games that are appropriate for kids should be a decision made by their parents."

Source:

Reuters

Previous Next

Comments

Comment by: faqman98 (Aug 07, 2007 22:39)

this shows that even in a corrupt government the constitution with always lead in the way of the just

Comment by: Adzagam (Aug 07, 2007 22:58)

Aren't they labelling the games already? And even if violent games aren't sold to minors, the minors will just look for a way to obtain it by other means.

Comment by: 21Q (Aug 07, 2007 22:58)

My view is that violent video games shouldn't exist.

Comment by: cousinkix (Aug 07, 2007 23:08)

What an IDIOT! In that case minors should demand the right to purchase adult magazines, porn flicks, cigarettes, booze and even guns. Ain't nothing in that same US CONSTITUTION, that places minimum age limits on the right to buy anything at all. NONE.

No chance in hell are they gonna be consistent with this permissive attitude. Using that same logic, you can say that pictures of naked women doesn't make somebody a rapist. Most people don't drive drunk either; but no way are they gonna drop unconstitutional age limits on these items any time soon.

So let the kids have their copies of PLAYBOY, Deep Throat, Marlboros, Jack Daniels and a 9mm GLOCK pistol. Sound crazy, does it? Then remember that the Federal 9th Circus Court of Appeals is full of lunatic fringe appointees. More than 75% of their decisions are overturned by SCOTUS because they are the wackos in robes.

I would BOYCOTT any store that sells a Grand Theft Auto and war games to kids. A brain dead judge should try watching his own local TV newscasts in San Francisco. A gang of punks played GTA just miles away in Oakland California. They shot 3 people for some cheap thrills last year. Another video games punk committed a murder in Fresno just last week for kicks. A raghead just asassinated a reporter only days ago! What planet does this imbecile live on?

Comment by: lxhotboy (Aug 07, 2007 23:48)

Quote:
My view is that violent video games shouldn't exist.

Violent movies exist. Violence is on the tv when you watch your news every night. Violence is on espn when you watch boxing. The answer is not to stop making violent video games. Maybe you want violent video games not to be made b/c you dont want to be blamed for poor parenting skills when your children screw up in society. I am 28 years old and if i want to play a violent video game before i go to work in the health profession and save someones life tommorrow, i should be able to do that. But i do not let my 4 year old son watch me play Grand Theft Auto San Andreas. I have better parenting skills than that. I think it would be better to say:

I dont think minors should be allowed to buy certain video games depending on the age of the minor and the type of violence displayed in that particular game

Talk about shallow hal...more like shallow reasoning skills.

Comment by: sk8flawzz (Aug 08, 2007 01:13)

ive been playing violent video games all my life and came out fine...
its all about the parenting...mine kept me in check haha

Comment by: sk8flawzz (Aug 08, 2007 01:14)

oops double post

Comment by: dallasj (Aug 08, 2007 01:48)

Most or all major retailers already don't sell M-rated games to minors. I don't think it's the government's job to say what games can and can't be sold to kids. I completely think that it's the parents' job.

Also, Twisted Metal 2 was one of the first games I ever played, and I've never felt the urge to attach a machine gun to my car.

Comment by: emugamer (Aug 08, 2007 12:29)

People have become more desensitized to violence over the past few decades. A movie like Hostel would never have been mainstream 20 years ago. Maybe not even 10 years ago. And while the judge is right that there haven't been studies to conclude the effect of violent video games, I believe the same can be said for movies and other forms of entertainment. It's upbringing and environment IMO that contribute to a childs behavior and effect. Someone who commits a violent act is probably already pre-disposed toward violence. Physical and sexual abuse as a child are the major contributors to adolescent and adult disfunction. A child in a nurturing and loving home is less likely to go on a shooting rampage after playing GTA. Of course there are other factors like depression, mental illness and other disorders that play a part also. The people who complain about video game violence are the parents who love their children enough to care. And they have every right to want restrictions so that their child is not exposed to these games beyond their control. The children/adults who are violent are the ones who have/had parents who don't/didn't care. If a child is that far gone, the video game is not going to be what sets him/her off.

Let's face it. Certain people should not be allowed to breed. I have 2 children, and I think about this every day. Hugs not punches...Quality, not quantity. Just my opinion.

Comment by: diabolos (Aug 08, 2007 13:41)

The bottom line is that video games are already rated and that any actions toward a more strict system should involve the ESRB not the senate.

This to me is a dead issue as it has already been addressed. Like Arnold said, he signed it so that parents would have to confront this issue. If parents don't want to then they shouldn't have to. You can make laws because some people suck.

Ced

Comment by: aone (Aug 09, 2007 03:59)

i'm sorry. i really wouldn't reply to this topic. why beat a dead horse? but this reply was just...haha.

Originally posted by cousinkix:
What an IDIOT! In that case minors should demand the right to purchase adult magazines, porn flicks, cigarettes, booze and even guns. Ain't nothing in that same US CONSTITUTION, that places minimum age limits on the right to buy anything at all. NONE.

um...parents? hello? parents? do you know where your kids are? and cigarettes, booze and guns pose *known* health risks towards people. violent video games don't. and porn? why not? maybe they won't have time for violent things...

Originally posted by cousinkix:
No chance in hell are they gonna be consistent with this permissive attitude. Using that same logic, you can say that pictures of naked women doesn't make somebody a rapist. Most people don't drive drunk either; but no way are they gonna drop unconstitutional age limits on these items any time soon.

um...pictures of naked women don't make rapists...and...most people really don't drive drunk...if i read it correctly...and i think i read it correctly...15 to 20k alcohol related deaths out of 3 something mil traffic accidents isn't that much if you look at it statistically. 2006 NHTSA assessments

Originally posted by cousinkix:
So let the kids have their copies of PLAYBOY, Deep Throat, Marlboros, Jack Daniels and a 9mm GLOCK pistol. Sound crazy, does it? Then remember that the Federal 9th Circus Court of Appeals is full of lunatic fringe appointees. More than 75% of their decisions are overturned by SCOTUS because they are the wackos in robes.

um..parents...dad...did you throw out those playboys? did you lock up that gun? how about the liquor on the top shelf? did you check to see if it's still there? and doesn't uncle tom realize why he's always losing his cigarettes? kids don't need to buy it when it's readily available at home. again...parents...do you know what your kids are doing? do you know how they're spending their allowance money? have you had that "talk" with them? do you keep having that "talk" with them? those several several "talks" with them throughout their whole lives starting at the young tender age of..oh..6? wouldn't want timmy to blow his head away (and even worse! blow someone else's darling child away) because you were too busy...

Originally posted by cousinkix:
I would BOYCOTT any store that sells a Grand Theft Auto and war games to kids. A brain dead judge should try watching his own local TV newscasts in San Francisco. A gang of punks played GTA just miles away in Oakland California. They shot 3 people for some cheap thrills last year. Another video games punk committed a murder in Fresno just last week for kicks. A raghead just asassinated a reporter only days ago! What planet does this imbecile live on?

ahem..parents...PARENTS??!!! are you listening??!! and wow....why don't you blame their upbringing? that crime ridden environment...that violent violent daily news (on 3-5 times a day!)...provocative commercials...lovely gratuitously violent movies...all those quite sadisti--*ahem* humorous websites out there (readily free of ratings and restrictions)...those unfit parents that won't stop procreating themselves into poverty and won't beat their kids...though..rich kids get bored too...chemical unbalances creating sociopathic tendencies...gangs...peer pressures...drugs...and bad, just really bad parenting...oh, and you forgot to mention the reason for the probably 10 other tragically random murders that day that probably don't include video games whatsoever. statistics i don't have of course.

what kind of world do you live in, when you wanna take away other people's freedoms cause you can't control your own kid. again, dead horse, so sorry, not the best arguments anyway, but...man...

Comment by: blackvamp (Aug 09, 2007 14:54)

First, I support this Bill. Selling a M rated game to minor should be treated the same as selling alcohol. This is NOT the same as the system we have right now. This bill will FORCE the parents to be more responsible and raise the awareness of the society.

I totally agree with that parents' upbringing is the most important factor how the kid will turn up. But what about those irresponsible parents? Do we just say "hey, if your kids grow up to be losers, it's your problem!"? NO! Because it's not just the problem for that family, it's a problem for the victims of the crimes, a problem for the whole society.

We have a pretty good rating system in place, now we need a way to enforce it. Like selling alcohol to minors will lead to liscence being revoked, selling M-rated games to minors should have a similar consequence. Will some sneaky middle-schooler still find ways to get the games? Of course. Does that mean we should just make that an excuse and ignore the problem?

Comment by: blackvamp (Aug 09, 2007 14:54)

Comment by: RNR1995 (Aug 09, 2007 20:31)

I am not a gamer but can't you just rate them the same as movies?
Same thing with TV
I always laugh my butt off when they say TVMAVLP or something like that
Like who knows what all that crap means?
But I bet some parent knows what NC 17 means!

Comment by: borhan9 (Aug 17, 2007 21:04)

Quote:
Legislators of the time argued that violence in video games could lead to psychological harm and give way to violent and irrational behavior.

This is not just a theory its a fact. USA just has to look back to its recent history of high school violence that has occured.

Quote:
Schwarzenegger who signed the original bill instituting the law had this to say about the recent decision, "I signed this important measure to ensure that parents are involved in determining which video games are appropriate for their children. Many of these games are made for adults and choosing games that are appropriate for kids should be a decision made by their parents."

My sentiments exactly. I think if any law has to be changed it would be the one that allows him to run for president. From what i have been hearing and reading about how he is running things it seems that he is very level headed.