Schwarzenegger Signs Videogame Bill

[Jukey]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation on Friday to outlaw the sale to teenagers of electronic games featuring reckless mayhem and explicit sexuality.

The bill bans the sale or rental to those under 18 of any video games that "depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel." Violations carry a fine of up to $1,000.
Link to original article (http://news.com.com/Schwarzenegger+signs+video+game+bill/2100-1043_3-5891668.html?tag=nefd.top)

How bad does a game have to be to qualify as "especially heinous?"

[KarmaGhost]

It doesn't sound like this bill uses the classifications set forth by the ESRP, so it begs the question "who decides how 'especially heinous' a game is?" That makes it a matter of opinion and would make it difficuilt to prosecute any offenders.

[AspectVoid]

I think Pitfall should be banned immeadiately. The original Atari version, of course. Humans being eaten by gators, drowning in quicksand, and poisoned to death by snakes definately falls und heinous and atrocious.

/sarcasm

With that out of my system, this is one of those things that the courts need to crush since there is no standard definition of what it is. Its all up to whoever it is that writes the ticket. This is a really stupid bill, IMO

[TheKeck]

How bad does a game have to be to qualify as "especially heinous"?

Main Entry: es·pe·cial·ly
Pronunciation: is-'pesh-lE, -'pe-sh&-
Function: adverb
1 : SPECIALLY 1
2 a : in particular : PARTICULARLY <food seems cheaper, especially meats> b : for a particular purpose <built especially for research>
3 -- used as an intensive <an especially good essay> <nothing especially radical in the remarks>

Main Entry: hei·nous
Pronunciation: 'hA-n&s
Function: adjective
Etymology: Middle English, from Middle French haineus, from haine hate, from hair to hate, of Germanic origin; akin to Old High German haz hate -- more at HATE
: hatefully or shockingly evil : ABOMINABLE


I think that more than clears things up. :rolleyes:

[Deadend]

Whatever happend to the whole republican thing of letting companies do their thing?

[Tricky Thumb]

This from a man who made his cash cow on violent action flicks?

[jacktion]

That's the problem with republicans, they only stick to a rule when it benefits them.

(and screws the regular guy)

zing!



But seriously. The speech in this bill is pretty vague. Plus it brings up an interesting point. Videogames are more an expression of the user's actions. So if I am playing a Muppet Babies game, and I drive my Big Wheel over kermits head again and again and again, driving his skull into the ground repeatedly, isn't that cruel? Even there is no blood programmed in? And the developers didn't mean it to be played like that?

[fitbabits]

Schwarzenegger signs video game bill...

...and almost immediately sees whatever coolness he had remaining go spiralling down the toilet.

I hope his next shit is a hedgehog.

[Chagrinful]

You just KNOW the way he(Arnie) says "heinous" it sounds like "Games that are especially ANUS".

[NoName]

Eh, I saw one gaming news site with this article titled "The Terminator Signs Violent Video Game Bill."

Sorta ironic when you think about it...

[Zanzibar]

That's the problem with republicans, they only stick to a rule when it benefits them.

(and screws the regular guy)

zing!


Amen, my brothah.

[The Radical Cleric]

You know, I don't really understand what the big deal is. Look at it this way, most of us are old enough to purchase the games we want, and this actually makes parents or retailers responsible, not the industry itself.

Further, it would shield the industry from more GTA grandmother style lawsuits, since either the retailer would be fined for selling GTA to a minor, or the parent would have had to buy the game themselves for the child, which would also land the blame directly on the parent. (Where it should be).

Either way the onus is off the industry. Am I missing something? :confused:

[carneconcarne]

I think last action hero for the SNES was expecially heinous

[laggerific]

I'm guessing they are setting their criteria at above AbuGhraib level gratuitousness...I mean, they have to...if violent video games have higher penalties than authorizing torture, then something is seriously wro...oh yeah, things are seriously wrong.

[Xaerin]

How bad does a game have to be to qualify as "especially heinous"?
If Driv3r comes to mind when you play it then what you have there is an especially heinous game.

[NoName]

If Driv3r comes to mind when you play it then what you have there is an especially heinous game.
LOL, nice. Who said violence had to be the main factor in the games heinousness....

[Walter]

You know, I don't really understand what the big deal is. Look at it this way, most of us are old enough to purchase the games we want, and this actually makes parents or retailers responsible, not the industry itself.

Further, it would shield the industry from more GTA grandmother style lawsuits, since either the retailer would be fined for selling GTA to a minor, or the parent would have had to buy the game themselves for the child, which would also land the blame directly on the parent. (Where it should be).

Either way the onus is off the industry. Am I missing something? :confused:

The problem is that it gives the government the power to decide what kids should and should not be buying. That's not the government's job.

[51|RandoM]

Doesn't seem like a big deal to me. On the other hand, I'm old enough to buy the games two at a time, lol.

[51|RandoM]

The problem is that it gives the government the power to decide what kids should and should not be buying. That's not the government's job.

The government is giving the power back to the parents, imho, and adding a little bit of enforcement to make sure that the vendors respect the parents' wishes.

[Ernst_Jager]

While I totally don't agree with censorship, I don't see anything wrong with consumer accountability. To be honest, I don't think any 13 year old should be able to buy a game like GTA.

[The Radical Cleric]

The problem is that it gives the government the power to decide what kids should and should not be buying. That's not the government's job.

So what about the drinking / smoking age restrictions and the illegailty of drugs?

Whether or not you agree with it, it most certainly is something the government does.

[Orphiuchus]

Eh, I wouldn't have a big problem with people under 18 being barred from even playing M rated games on the internet. I know everyone says we need these laws because grand theft auto is warping our children, but what about what your children are doing to Dod:s? The next time you worry about the effect playing violent games has on little billy, worry about the effect little billy has on everyone else when he deploys a machinegun in his team spawn and mows everyone down as they join.

[*Legion*]

I love the Republican bashing.

Care to guess the party of the AUTHOR and the main proponents of the bill? Or the majority party of the legislative body that passed the bill in the first place?

HINT: Not Republican.

Sure, Arnie vetoing the bill would have been more in line with traditional Republican politics. But the bill was created and pushed all the way through to the governor's desk by a different political party, but which party gets the bashing?

(Divisive party-based politics are dumb, but that's another discussion)

[The Radical Cleric]

Eh, I wouldn't have a big problem with people under 18 being barred from even playing M rated games on the internet. I know everyone says we need these laws because grand theft auto is warping our children, but what about what your children are doing to Dod:s? The next time you worry about the effect playing violent games has on little billy, worry about the effect little billy has on everyone else when he deploys a machinegun in his team spawn and mows everyone down as they join.

:p Yes! :p

[Orphiuchus]

I love the Republican bashing.

Care to guess the party of the AUTHOR and the main proponents of the bill? Or the majority party of the legislative body that passed the bill in the first place?

HINT: Not Republican.

Sure, Arnie vetoing the bill would have been more in line with traditional Republican politics. But the bill was created and pushed all the way through to the governor's desk by a different political party, but which party gets the bashing?

(Divisive party-based politics are dumb, but that's another discussion)


Oh no, don't point out the obvious! Thats like kryptonite to them!

[AspectVoid]

The government is giving the power back to the parents, imho, and adding a little bit of enforcement to make sure that the vendors respect the parents' wishes.

I see this the opposite way. I see parents using this as a copout and an excuse so they don't have to pay attention to what their kids play. Well, more so then they already do, that is. And, frankly, I really can't see them carding for games anymore then they card for movies, and where I live, I've never heard of anyone being carded for a movie.

[Mobeus Chronox]

Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed legislation on Friday to outlaw the sale to teenagers of electronic games featuring reckless mayhem and explicit sexuality.



Link to original article (http://news.com.com/Schwarzenegger+signs+video+game+bill/2100-1043_3-5891668.html?tag=nefd.top)

How bad does a game have to be to qualify as "especially heinous"?

Any games based on movies Ahnold has been in probably qualify.

[FyrionX]

Clearly, not describing what is "especially heinous" is part of the purpose of the legislation. It allows the judge to have to room for interpretation with regards to the law, similar to many parts of the Constitution.

[Nighthold]

Saddly I dont really see the problem with this bill. These games are made for people 18 and over, and the majority of people who buy them are 18 and over. Frankly if the country just passes laws like this restricting access to M rated game to teens and children, maybe we could see some more mature adult titles.

As long as they are not interfering with an adults right to buy a violent videogame, I frankly dont care.

[Thumper]

Like most of you, i'm not sure i like the wording of the bill. If it was going strictly by the ESRB ratings I'd be totally behind it. But a bunch of suits driven by realpolitik shouldn't be deciding which games to ban and which to let through.

Still, it only effects minors and i'm sure they'll blacklist the worst games for sure (hopefully they don't get too out of control and start banning mario for head-bashing).

The real question is, will they enforce it at all?

[Orphiuchus]

I see this the opposite way. I see parents using this as a copout and an excuse so they don't have to pay attention to what their kids play. Well, more so then they already do, that is. And, frankly, I really can't see them carding for games anymore then they card for movies, and where I live, I've never heard of anyone being carded for a movie.


Clearly you didn't try to go see a R rated move at 17 the week after columbine.


Look, this right now is a popular trend that the politicians have latched on to, it will blow over in a few months or years. Its not going to be a big deal in the end.

I think the bigger problem is that there are a lot of bad parents out there. They were around before video games, and you always knew who the kids with bad parents were. That kid who had playboys in 7th grade gym class? Bad parents. That kid who used to steal basketballs at recess and take them home like he owned them? Bad parents. Its the same thing now. There are simply some bad parents out there who are going to let their kids play adult games, and there isn't shit we can do about it. Its the dad who gave his 13 year old a penthouse forum instead of having "the talk" who now buys his underaged kids violent video games, and thats just the way its going to be.

[Kelegacy]

The bill says "Humans", right? So could rockstar create a GTA game with aliens shooting each other in the head and cutting heads off with chainsaws? There could be ways around the loophole, that's for sure.

These sorts of bills don't bother me. At least it takes the blame off the videogames for committing youth crimes (in theory, anyway). They cant be a scapegoat when parents willingly buy these games, knowing they are illegal, for their children. Finally parents are to blame, when they should have been all along.

[bapenguin]

Oh boy, now it's illegal. Is it going to change little kids from playing GTA? I don't think so.

[Heretic Machine]

This thing is going to get thrown out the very first time they try to prosecute anyone...

[fitbabits]

This thing is going to get thrown out the very first time they try to prosecute anyone...
Probably before that given the history of this particular type of bill. Look to the ESA or ESRB to sue the Arnie and his cronies.

[fitbabits]

Oh boy, now it's illegal. Is it going to change little kids from playing GTA? I don't think so.
Nope. If anything, kids will be drawn to them because it's illegal to play them.

[Abednigo]

I'll just ignore all the Republican comments...

As a conservative myself (I'm starting to hate referring to myself as a Republican these days) I just have to say this bill is stupid. It's the RESPONSIBILITY OF THE PARENTS to monitor what their kids are playing. Parents need to step up and stop letting the government raise their kids for them (most parents do I know, but it's those who don't that push for these bills).

[drakkarim]

How bad does a game have to be to qualify as "especially heinous"?

this is known as the 'escape clause' for those with enough money to hire a good enough lawyer that will argue effectively enough to instill doubt as to their client falling under that category.

[Heretic Machine]

That kid who had playboys in 7th grade gym class? Bad parents.

...I'm sorry, but if you weren't oogling naked women by the sixth grade then your problem wasn't 'good' parents. You just weren't motivated enough.

[Klade]

You know, I don't really understand what the big deal is. Look at it this way, most of us are old enough to purchase the games we want, and this actually makes parents or retailers responsible, not the industry itself.

Further, it would shield the industry from more GTA grandmother style lawsuits, since either the retailer would be fined for selling GTA to a minor, or the parent would have had to buy the game themselves for the child, which would also land the blame directly on the parent. (Where it should be).

Either way the onus is off the industry. Am I missing something? :confused:

The big problem is that it sets precedent that video games should be treated differently from other forms of media like music or movies. Neither of which (despite the persisting ignorance of theater ages) have any laws about who or what can buy thier products.

This law says its ok to treat video games differently because they are video games. This makes it a free speech issue.

-------------------------------

Now watch in awe as I wade neck deep into the putrid waters that is the debate between democrat and republican ethics!

Republicans as a general philosophy believe that there should be less govt control over industry and many other personal affairs. However they see it as a fundamental responsibility of govt. to ensure that the values of decency are maintained. This is not a contradiction, they see upholding these values on a basic level while less govt control comes into play at legislative level.

Democrats believe as a general philosophy that there should be more control over industry since the industry can not be trusted to control itself. However there should not be an interference with basic rights since everyone is entitled to live as they like. This is not a contradiction because again it occurs on a fundamental level.

When one side tries listens to the others argument they see what they are saying AS A contradiction because they both have different beliefs about what is a fundamental right or responsibility.

Like any general rule these do not apply to everyone or even to most people perfectly.

And more to the point of this conversation it doesn't apply at all since this bill was not created out of any one side’s personal or ethical belief but because these people are politicians and they want to show support for their constituents. They know perfectly well that the courts will kill this law just like they have in the other 3 or 5 states?

[Tentaro]

Any games based on movies Ahnold has been in probably qualify.
Hey, SKYnet was good. The heinous part was how buggy it was. Definitley ahead of it's time. Like most Bethesda products of the time, unplayably buggy, but awesome.

And to stay on topic.
The big problem is that it sets precedent that video games should be treated differently from other forms of media like music or movies. Neither of which (despite the persisting ignorance of theater ages) have any laws about who or what can buy thier products.

This law says its ok to treat video games differently because they are video games. This makes it a free speech issue.





As far as I know you have to be 17 to get into an R rated movie, and either 17 or 18(Can't remember which) to buy a CD that is labeled explicit. You must have seen those warnings before. You know the big black and white box covering the artwork that says parental advisory. I thought that legally these had to be carded for(I'm 24 now and when I was young I was carded to see chasing amy, south park, and to buy CDs at various times). Are these just voluntary or was it their legal responsibility to card? And if so, then games should be treated no differently. Personally I find the whole censorship/ratings thing to be stupid and unnecessary. Really.

[Kagger]

Ok....again...my favorite rant.



The games are rated M for 17+...yet the laws are making them 18+....doesn't that go back on the ratings they are basing it against?

I'm 16.5, I turn 17 at the month of February...and I want to be able to buy the games I want to that I'm allowed to based on the rating. If the game says 17+, and Im 17, I better be able to walk into EB and buy the game...or I smell lawsuit.

Someone needs to just start appealing these laws....pull a 1st Ammendment or use my argument that the laws are contridictory.





Greatest Terminator game...is the Arcade one based off T2...so much fun

[The Radical Cleric]

The big problem is that it sets precedent that video games should be treated differently from other forms of media like music or movies. Neither of which (despite the persisting ignorance of theater ages) have any laws about who or what can buy thier products.

Ok, I can see that. Good point.

[Orphiuchus]

...I'm sorry, but if you weren't oogling naked women by the sixth grade then your problem wasn't 'good' parents. You just weren't motivated enough.

Oh, we all got to oogle naked women in junior high, and we all got to do it because little billy had a bad father who gave him porn. Thats the way it worked. The normal kids got their oogle time in hiding in a corner by the lockers all huddled around little billy, the kid with a shitbag father. I know me and all the other guys huddled around the mags wound up normal enough, but I never did hear what happened to little billy after he ran through a elementary school trying to escape the cops a few years back.

Now with the internet I'm sure the way this works has changed, which is a shame, because the idea that future kids may be bigger perverts than we were back in the day... well, its distrubing, because we were pretty big pervs.

[Sazime]

Hey, I'm 25, I can still get mine. Why should I care about the rest of you?

I'm kidding. This is annoying and should be overturned in court. I find bunnies heinous, and bunnies with rollerskates, reckless!

[Kagger]

So what about the drinking / smoking age restrictions and the illegailty of drugs?


Which goes againts the Supreme Court. When they passed the ruling of the Right of Privacy based on the 9th Ammendment, that opened the door for things like Abortion (not trying to get into that argument here). So...if they want to allow that...they have to do the other stuff...or they are hypocrites.

Do I believe alcohol should be sold to minors...no, but nonetheless...the made their ruling

[Zeal]

Terminated.

[Drinking_Buddy]

While I totally don't agree with censorship, I don't see anything wrong with consumer accountability. To be honest, I don't think any 13 year old should be able to buy a game like GTA.

This is my main problem with these kind of laws. You think that 13 year old kids should not play GTA. Thats fine and you might be right, but what if I think my 13 is old enough for for GTA?

If I am a parent it should be my responablity to decide what is right and wrong for my child. (With the obvious execptions of more dangerous vices, like smoking, drugs, alcohol and sex with women)

I know this law doesnt stop me form deciding for my kid, but its the principle. Until video games become as dangerous as the other vices I listed, I see no real reason to regulate them.

[Ernst_Jager]

I said buy not play. Huge difference.

[Dr.Finger]

You know, I don't really understand what the big deal is. Look at it this way, most of us are old enough to purchase the games we want, and this actually makes parents or retailers responsible, not the industry itself.

Further, it would shield the industry from more GTA grandmother style lawsuits, since either the retailer would be fined for selling GTA to a minor, or the parent would have had to buy the game themselves for the child, which would also land the blame directly on the parent. (Where it should be).

Either way the onus is off the industry. Am I missing something? :confused:
The onus is on the industry because if this law stays on the books as is (which it won't, it'll be struck down as "too vague" just like every law of this type) because retailers will be wary of carrying M-rated titles because if some clerk sells it to a 15 year old, they get punished. Look, there are ratings/warning labels for movies, TV, music, comic book and god knows what else, but in all those cases the system is voluntary. A kid is legally allowed to see an R rated movie, but theater industry rules say they must be accompanied by an adult to do so. This law would make a criminal out of a parent that let a minor play Unreal, even if the minor is mature enough to handle it. Even more troubling is the vague language of the law. Would T-rated fighting games be included? Football games? Lara Croft falls down and dies in Tomb Raider, does that count? I say treat video games like every other form of media. Let the industry regulate themselves, and keep the State House out of it.

[TheKeck]

Further, it would shield the industry from more GTA grandmother style lawsuits, since either the retailer would be fined for selling GTA to a minor, or the parent would have had to buy the game themselves for the child, which would also land the blame directly on the parent. (Where it should be).


But, it WAS the grandmother who bought GTA. This would still be perfectly legal. She sued (idiotically) because it had content she didn't expect it to have.

[Magnanimous Gnome]

Gov Arnold also squashed the first legislatively passed gay marriage bill in the US.

He lost any points he had with me then, and is now officially an asshat.

A very buff, Austrian asshat.

[Nintendo Revolution]

I'm going to quote Kotaku on this subject:

It’s naive to think that people don’t change, but let’s review the facts. Here’s a man who’s made a career out of playing violent killers. There’s more. Here’s a man who was accused of sexually harassing women on multiple occasions and admitted to engaging in orgies at Gold’s Gym during the 1970’s. Here’s a man that confessed to using illegal drugs and steroids. Let’s not forget that here’s a man who invited a Nazi war criminal to his wedding. (Arnie’s own father was a member of the Nazi Party.) Finally, here’s a man that publicly said, “People need somebody to watch over them… Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave.”

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/law/index.php#schwarzenegger-you-friggin-hypocrite-129900

Everything this man stands for I fucking despise. I can't believe he is in office. Although, thats just the tip of the iceberg, I'll end the rant there.

[Klade]

As far as I know you have to be 17 to get into an R rated movie, and either 17 or 18(Can't remember which) to buy a CD that is labeled explicit. You must have seen those warnings before. You know the big black and white box covering the artwork that says parental advisory. I thought that legally these had to be carded for(I'm 24 now and when I was young I was carded to see chasing amy, south park, and to buy CDs at various times). Are these just voluntary or was it their legal responsibility to card? And if so, then games should be treated no differently. Personally I find the whole censorship/ratings thing to be stupid and unnecessary. Really.

You got it towards the end. The restrictions for theaters, music, and movies are all just voluntary. There are no laws that say you have to be 17 to see an R rated film. Most people don't know theres no law they were always just told that it was so. But in reality its up to the theaters themselves to decide if they want to let in kids younger then that or not.

Likewise many Walmarts have started to train their electronics employees not to let kids buy M rated video games. Again there is no law (unless your in California) that says they can't sell them, they are just doing it on their own. Given enough time other stores will pick up this policy as well. The reason being that as knowledge spreads the parents that do watch their kids will find out that they are playing M rated games and go to the store and bitch them out. It doesn't take too many experiences of that happening for a store to change its policy on its own. And all without the govt doing anything. As we have already seen happen with music, and movies. Hence another problem with this bill.

[divinechaos]

[QUOTE=Nintendo Revolution]I'm going to quote Kotaku on this subject:

It’s naive to think that people don’t change, but let’s review the facts. Here’s a man who’s made a career out of playing violent killers. There’s more. Here’s a man who was accused of sexually harassing women on multiple occasions and admitted to engaging in orgies at Gold’s Gym during the 1970’s. Here’s a man that confessed to using illegal drugs and steroids. Let’s not forget that here’s a man who invited a Nazi war criminal to his wedding. (Arnie’s own father was a member of the Nazi Party.) Finally, here’s a man that publicly said, “People need somebody to watch over them… Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave.”

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/law/index.php#schwarzenegger-you-friggin-hypocrite-129900

QUOTE]

Very nice, someone should email this to him.

[Nintendo Revolution]

No kidding. This is almost as abserd as when the sniping in DC occured. The sniping boy, i forget his name, referred to himself as a God. I actually heard debates against games like doom shortly after, saying that he was referring to 'god mode'. I found it so rediculous that they must take something already targeted by many people and pervert the arguement. Doom didn't even have fucking sniper rifles.

This also brings me back to those flaming on the hot coffee mod. It's all so over the top.

[Orphiuchus]

I'm going to quote Kotaku on this subject:

It’s naive to think that people don’t change, but let’s review the facts. Here’s a man who’s made a career out of playing violent killers. There’s more. Here’s a man who was accused of sexually harassing women on multiple occasions and admitted to engaging in orgies at Gold’s Gym during the 1970’s. Here’s a man that confessed to using illegal drugs and steroids. Let’s not forget that here’s a man who invited a Nazi war criminal to his wedding. (Arnie’s own father was a member of the Nazi Party.) Finally, here’s a man that publicly said, “People need somebody to watch over them… Ninety-five percent of the people in the world need to be told what to do and how to behave.”

http://www.kotaku.com/gaming/law/index.php#schwarzenegger-you-friggin-hypocrite-129900

Everything this man stands for I fucking despise. I can't believe he is in office. Although, thats just the tip of the iceberg, I'll end the rant there.

You despise immigrants, success, people who have tried pot, people who used steroids before medical information about their long term effects came out, people who have lies told about them, and violent films and video games?

It sounds more like you despise republicans.

[mister_slim]

It doesn't sound like this bill uses the classifications set forth by the ESRP, so it begs the question "who decides how 'especially heinous' a game is?" That makes it a matter of opinion and would make it difficuilt to prosecute any offenders.
What you are missing, see, is that the ESRB is not the wing of a group of businesses trying to make money selling entertainment to people of the appropriate age but rather a heinous plot to destroy the morality of and brainwash the children.

[jwbxx]

How bad does a game have to be to qualify as "especially heinous?"Black and white 2

[Orphiuchus]

Black and white 2

Quoted for truth.

Spelled out for post length.

Oh yea.

[Pumped'Up]

Gov Arnold also squashed the first legislatively passed gay marriage bill in the US.

He lost any points he had with me then, and is now officially an asshat.

A very buff, Austrian asshat.
Because of this, Aunold remains the king.