I'd say this fully establishes video games as a media form to be protected and respected as movies and books have been, as opposed to stigmatizing them. Jack Thompson, Joe Lieberman, Hillary Clinton and everyone else, on both sides of the aisle, who disrespected video games for so long now have egg on their face.
I don't think I understand what's to be happy about. Why is selling M-rated vidja games to kids good?
It's not, but there's no reason that it should be any more illegal than selling R-rated movie tickets to kids. The alternative ruling would have separated videogames from other forms of media like movies, books, music, etc.
I don't think I understand what's to be happy about. Why is selling M-rated vidja games to kids good?
That's not the point. The point is that this is something the government should have no say in, as per the First Amendment. Most major store chains have a policy that prohibits employees from selling M-rated games (and for that matter, R-rated movies and books and music with explicit content labels). Indeed, such employees face termination if they violate this policy. (I have friends who have worked at Gamestop and Best Buy, so I know all about this.) The fact that California's stupid law got struck down like it deserved does not affect any existing store policies on this matter. Most of the major chains also have a reputation to protect, so they're not going to do away with said policies anytime soon.
Such store policies do not affect the games developers are willing to make, nor does it affect the library of games these stores carry. A law restricting such sales, on the other hand, would do exactly this, with developers now being forced to "kiddify" their games to make the most money and with M-rated games being forced into more of a niche (like porn is now). That's not a world I'd like to have lived in.
So you either want to single out video games (which would be stupid, as they're primed to supplant movies as the most prolific entertainment medium at the rate they're going), or you just hate the First Amendment. Which is it?
actually, the main focus of the hubbub isn't selling it to kids.
it's that for the law to have passed prosecutors would have to have shown that video games lacked serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
this means that US courts agree that video games have as much value as books, music, movies or any other medium when it comes to freely expressing ideas.
it doesn't stop that some stores, like the EB games here in Ch'town, PEI, Canada, actually does card kids trying to buy an M rated game. but if the law would have passed, the content would be much more strictly regulated in Stateside under, i think your free speech amendment.
Not all movies are for kids. Not all books are for kids. Should we start drafting laws to promote the awareness of that fact? And then spend millions in legal fees despite the fact that those are clearly unconstitutional laws?
Which constitution are you talking about? I'm not American
So you either want to single out video games (which would be stupid, as they're primed to supplant movies as the preferred entertainment medium at the rate they're going), or you just hate the First Amendment. Which is it?
What's this First Amendment anyway?
On a more serious note: adding laws that would prevent selling M-rated (or 18+, as they are rated by PEGI; we do not use ESRB ratings) may finally get to some people that games can be mature too and they're not all for kids. You think we don't get stupid media people complaining about violence and "pornography" in "children's entertainment"?
There are also awareness campaigns to make parents realize what they buy. But it also seems that now with people who grew with video games having kids of their own that it's decreasingly a problem.
OK, so the U.S. Constitution has no bearing where you live, but that still doesn't change the fact that you're advocating applying a stigma to video games that you don't seem ready to apply to movies and books. And if you were to advocate for laws that restrict sales of movies and books as well, we would disagree on a very fundamental standpoint, as I am completely against government-sanctioned censorship.
OK, so the U.S. Constitution has no bearing where you live, but that still doesn't change the fact that you're advocating applying a stigma to video games that you don't seem ready to apply to movies and books. And if you were to advocate for laws that restrict sales of movies and books as well, we would disagree on a very fundamental standpoint, as I am completely against government-sanctioned censorship.
I didn't say anything about books or movies. But if you need this spelled out (Americans
):Books and movies have been around long enough for people to recognize their artistic value and to identify which are suitable for minors. In fact, books suitable for minors are usually in the children's and/or youth section.
Kid's movies on the other hand are usually advertised in a way that makes them easily distinguishable. Not to mention most of them are animated.
(just in case: no, I do not believe all animation is for kids; I wouldn't show my kid Persepolis even though I liked it very much).
But if you need this spelled out (Americans
Hey now. No need to be so unnecessarily condescending. Yes, books and movies have been around long enough for people to recognize their artistic value and to identify which are suitable for minors, but it's important for the development of the videogame medium's own artistic identity that it be allowed to similarly progress without unwarranted legal intervention.
Books and movies have been around long enough for people to recognize their artistic value and to identify which are suitable for minors. In fact, books suitable for minors are usually in the children's and/or youth section.
Kid's movies on the other hand are usually advertised in a way that makes them easily distinguishable. Not to mention most of them are animated.
(just in case: no, I do not believe all animation is for kids; I wouldn't show my kid Persepolis even though I liked it very much).
Length of time a medium has been around is really quite irrelevant as to determining something's artistic value. You don't think that the fact that video games are a multi-billion dollar industry doesn't speak to its artistic value? If that's not enough to convince you, how about the fact that L.A. Noire previewed at a film festival? Too recent? How about the fact that big names in the acting profession have been lending their voice acting talents to video games since about the turn of the century? Or that soundtracks of video games sell on CD and iTunes just as movie soundtracks do?
Also, your points about advertising and store placement are a red herring, but I'll address it anyway. I haven't found much of a difference between demographics in advertising as they apply to video games vs. movies. It's pretty clear from their advertising campaigns that Super Mario Galaxy is suitable for kids to play and Red Dead Redemption isn't.
Books and movies have been around long enough for people to recognize their artistic value and to identify which are suitable for minors. In fact, books suitable for minors are usually in the children's and/or youth section.
Kid's movies on the other hand are usually advertised in a way that makes them easily distinguishable. Not to mention most of them are animated.
(just in case: no, I do not believe all animation is for kids; I wouldn't show my kid Persepolis even though I liked it very much).Length of time a medium has been around is really quite irrelevant as to determining something's artistic value.
Is it? You may note that early cinema was not viewed as very "artistic". It took a while for it to grow and be recognized as something above mass entertainment.
You don't think that the fact that video games are a multi-billion dollar industry doesn't speak to its artistic value? If that's not enough to convince you, how about the fact that L.A. Noire previewed at a film festival? Too recent? How about the fact that big names in the acting profession have been lending their voice acting talents to video games since about the turn of the century? Or that soundtracks of video games sell on CD and iTunes just as movie soundtracks do?
I have no idea what are you trying to do, paint me as some kind of video game hater? I have an Xfire miniprofile in my sig for Pete's sake!
Games are growing like cinema did; developers are slowly gaining notablity (it's still mostly within the gaming niche, though it's a big one), games are getting better and ready to tackle on mature themes. Yet there are still people who condemn games and on this side of the pond we fix it with regulations. Diffrent strokes for different folks or however the saying goes.
Also, your points about advertising and store placement are a red herring, but I'll address it anyway. I haven't found much of a difference between demographics in advertising as they apply to video games vs. movies. It's pretty clear from their advertising campaigns that Super Mario Galaxy is suitable for kids to play and Red Dead Redemption isn't.
Well, in my particular country games aren't as widely advertised as movies are. Though The Witcher 2 will probably change this.
Um... this has nothing to do with censorship. Sale of alcohol, cigarettes, and porn to minors are all restricted. This is closer to that then censorship.
Heh, I remember seeing Master & Margaret with the formerly censored parts in red. Fun stuff.
Sale of alcohol, cigarettes, and porn to minors are all restricted.
But sale of books, movies, and music are not. Which are videogames more like?
Sale of alcohol, cigarettes, and porn to minors are all restricted.
But sale of books, movies, and music are not. Which are videogame more like?
Depends on the game?
What is a game anyway. That's what developers are asking themselves right now I've heard.
Depends on the game?
Not any more than it depends on the book, movie, or song.
But sale of books, movies, and music are not. Which are videogames more like?
Hey. Yeah... see what happens if a 12 year old tries to buy an uncensored Eminem album or Girls Gone Wild #13.
Hey. Yeah... see what happens if a 12 year old tries to buy an uncensored Eminem album or Girls Gone Wild #13.
He'll be stopped, as per store policy. As it should be with media. As opposed to law.
OK, who reported?
Which thread? If it was the one that I'm thinking of, I was enjoying that conversation. =/
Books and movies have been around long enough for people to recognize their artistic value and to identify which are suitable for minors. In fact, books suitable for minors are usually in the children's and/or youth section.
As pointed out by Justice Scalia: Have you ever READ Hansel & Gretel, Snow White, or Cinderella? H&G off their tormentor by stuffing her into an oven, the step-sisters get their eyes pecked out, and the Queen is killed by putting red-hot shoes on her her feet and being forced to dance to death. And they're all kids stories.
Um... this has nothing to do with censorship. Sale of alcohol, cigarettes, and porn to minors are all restricted. This is closer to that then censorship.
Strangely, I also agree with you and Justice Thomas: "The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians," Thomas wrote.
Books and movies have been around long enough for people to recognize their artistic value and to identify which are suitable for minors. In fact, books suitable for minors are usually in the children's and/or youth section.
As pointed out by Justice Scalia: Have you ever READ Hansel & Gretel, Snow White, or Cinderella? H&G off their tormentor by stuffing her into an oven, the step-sisters get their eyes pecked out, and the Queen is killed by putting red-hot shoes on her her feet and being forced to dance to death. And they're all kids stories.
I think you have misunderstood me. Or it's just too late in my timezone.
Either way I have no idea what violent fairy tales have to do with the topic at hand.
I'm pretty sure that it's not illegal to sell an uncensored Eminem album to a 12-years-old. It's probably against a lot of company policies, but that's not the same thing. Girls Gone Wild falls under pornography (for some reason), and pornography of all mediums, including videogames, is so legally restricted already. M-rated videogames are not the equivalent of pornography but the equivalent of R-rated movies, and so their legal restrictions should be essentially identical.
I think you're deliberatly ignoring my point.
If you can (try to) restrict access to pornographic material without it being censorship, why can't you (try to) restrict access to other material without it being censorship?
I think you have misunderstood me. Or it's just too late in my timezone.
Either way I have no idea what violent fairy tales have to do with the topic at hand.
Fairy tales are typically considered "suitable for minors", and are often more grotesque then most video games.
If you can (try to) restrict access to pornographic material without it being censorship...
Faulty premise. You can't. It's still censorship. The difference is that we have a society have generally deemed that specific form of censorship as acceptable.
Wow, I got poofed.
Different thread, "O Captain my Captain". Apparently, an entire thread got Sarnath'd...
Wow, I got poofed.
Different thread, "O Captain my Captain". Apparently, an entire thread got Sarnath'd...
Apparently two captains can't occupy the same thread at the same time or the thread implodes. And I was just about to show the other Capt. that only a small percentage of the remaining 98% could possibly pay 35%-44% income tax.
Damn, I probably just did it again. :poof:
Am I the only one thinking that the main change this law would make would be more parents saying "I'm sorry little Timmy but you can't legally buy that, why don't you download it instead?"
I don't think many parents would say that, but kids would certainly do that.
If parents wouldn't say that, why is anymore legislation required? Obviously kids aren't buying this stuff anyway, since their parents won't let them.
Not all parents are responsible
But it is changing in regards to games, thankfully.
It's honestly easier to legally forbid certain people from breeding then it is to force certain parents to be responsible, and that's saying something.
But getting a law that forbids minors from buying 18 rated videogames would at lest shut up some of the anti-game people. Not that they are particularly prominent, it's more of a general populace thing.
Though IIRC, our President gave Obama a copy of The Witcher 2. Fancy that.
Some people should be ignored, not listened to.
What is a game anyway. That's what developers are asking themselves right now I've heard.
Well according the SQUEENIX and final fantasy XIII the difference between a video game and a movies is your don't have to hit the A button and use a stick to make the main character walk around mindlessly for hours... but I digress...
Yeah, I know.
But getting a law that forbids minors from buying 18 rated videogames would at lest shut up some of the anti-game people. Not that they are particularly prominent, it's more of a general populace thing.
Though IIRC, our President gave Obama a copy of The Witcher 2. Fancy that.
It was a bit more than just forbidding selling, the bill would put a 2 inch square rating sticker on the front. Ratings are already put on the boxes of games, but they really wanted to cover the games. It was just an obnoxious "Ha ha! We passed a law and now you must obey" slap in the face type of thing.
Yeah, I know.
But getting a law that forbids minors from buying 18 rated videogames would at lest shut up some of the anti-game people. Not that they are particularly prominent, it's more of a general populace thing.
Though IIRC, our President gave Obama a copy of The Witcher 2. Fancy that.
It was a bit more than just forbidding selling, the bill would put a 2 inch square rating sticker on the front. Ratings are already put on the boxes of games, but they really wanted to cover the games. It was just an obnoxious "Ha ha! We passed a law and now you must obey" slap in the face type of thing.
Ah, that changes things a bit.
This stuff is so stupid. It's always the people that say 'I can't imagine what I'd do if my little Timmy got a hold of one of these abominations!' that want to do this kinda crap. Nevermind the fact that if you asked them 'would your little Timmy be able to get his hands on one of these abominations - keeping in mind he'd have to ask you to purchase it due to store policies' they'd say 'there's no way I'd buy it for him!'. In other words, at best it's trying to fix a problem that doesn't exist and at worst it's trying to place your unrealistic worldview on everyone else regardless of how they feel. This decision wasn't just a good thing, it was a triumph of common sense.
Exactly...
Besides they've conclusively proved that violent video games don't cause violence. Its frustrating video games that cause violence. The issue was confusing because most every frustating game was violent for a while, now we have tetris like games causing people to get more and more violent and games like Resident Evil making people calmer and less violent... (except for that annoying boss at the end of RE5 where even with the walk-through you have insta-death if you don't do it just right)...
it's that for the law to have passed as written, videogames would have to be proven by the court of law to lack any literary, artistic, political or scientific value and thus be not applicable under the first amendment and thus would not have the protection it allows.
that's the real victory here.
again, the main thing of import isn't the selling of the games to minors:
it's that for the law to have passed as written, videogames would have to be proven by the court of law to lack any literary, artistic, political or scientific value and thus be not applicable under the first amendment and thus would not have the protection it allows.
that's the real victory here.
That first amendment is a weird animal.
act.demandprogress.org/letter/ten_strike...
Apparently they want to make it a felony in the US to stream copyrighted materials. That mean splaying a videoclip behind your home video a few times will make the police come for you and send you off to jail.
It apparently also makes casting videogames illegal, which means that there will no longer be any coverage of eSports unless the tournament or amateur caster gets a license from the game owner.
It sounds... bad. Really bad.
In somewhat related and kinda troubling news:
act.demandprogress.org/letter/ten_strike...
Apparently they want to make it a felony in the US to stream copyrighted materials. That mean splaying a videoclip behind your home video a few times will make the police come for you and send you off to jail.
It apparently also makes casting videogames illegal, which means that there will no longer be any coverage of eSports unless the tournament or amateur caster gets a license from the game owner.
It sounds... bad. Really bad.
That bill is as terrible as it sounds. Not only does it shuffle a lot more of copyright law into the criminal realm, but the language is very vague about what it's trying to criminalize. The purpose seems to be to go after people who distribute full movies online (which I can understand), but the words "public performances by electronic means" could apply to, well, anything. Hell, even karaoke acts.
This piece is the best analysis I've read of it, by far: shoryuken.com/2011/06/29/trolling-the-st...
The funniest thing about this law was that it was signed by the Govenator... who as we all know, is extremely against violence...
Actually, it was signed by the new Governor, Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown. And yes, that's an (un)official nickname. I didn't come up with it.
EDIT: Sorry, for some reason I thought we were on the Amazon page.
Allow me to rebut the above statement with: Dude, he was married to a Kennedy for over 20 years. He learned hypocracy from the best. Besides, like all Kennedys, he believes in "This is bad unless it benefits me."
The funniest thing about this law was that it was signed by the Govenator... who as we all know, is extremely against violence...
Actually, it was signed by the new Governor, Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown. And yes, that's an (un)official nickname. I didn't come up with it.
EDIT: Sorry, for some reason I thought we were on the Amazon page.
Allow me to rebut the above statement with: Dude, he was married to a Kennedy for over 20 years. He learned hypocracy from the best. Besides, like all Kennedys pliticians, he believes in "This is bad unless it benefits me."
The funniest thing about this law was that it was signed by the Govenator... who as we all know, is extremely against violence...
Actually, it was signed by the new Governor, Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown. And yes, that's an (un)official nickname. I didn't come up with it.
EDIT: Sorry, for some reason I thought we were on the Amazon page.
Allow me to rebut the above statement with: Dude, he was married to a Kennedy for over 20 years. He learned hypocracy from the best. Besides, like all Kennedys politicians, he believes in "This is bad unless it benefits me."
The funniest thing about this law was that it was signed by the Govenator... who as we all know, is extremely against violence...
Actually, it was signed by the new Governor, Jerry "Moonbeam" Brown. And yes, that's an (un)official nickname. I didn't come up with it.
EDIT: Sorry, for some reason I thought we were on the Amazon page.
Allow me to rebut the above statement with: Dude, he was married to a Kennedy for over 20 years. He learned hypocracy from the best. Besides, like all Kennedys politicians, he believes in "This is bad unless it benefits me or one of my puppet masters."
the