While I was away, California governor (and ex-action star) Arnold Schwarzenneger, with the help of Assemblyman Leland Yee, signed California Bill AB1179 into law. This is the game-related law that bans the sale, or rental, of "violent" video games to "children" under the age of 18.
Source: Gamespot [ more info ]

---

Now, where I agree with the idea of hindering children from acquiring violent video games, I completely disagree with a few key aspects of the bill.

1. The definition of the word child.
The idea that at 18 a person still needs to be "protected" from violent content, atleast to me, is completely ridiculous. I accept though that the age at which certain physical and psychological changes occur in the human body is still largely under debate. I would just like to point out, however, that, less than 100 years ago, a boy was considered a man at the age of 14. Hell, my grandmother was married at 14.

2. 2x2 inch age restriction printed on the box.
If the rating on a box seems to have had no bearing on a "childs" ability to acquire a "violent video game", why would making the rating bigger help?

3. The definition of violence.
The new law defines a violent video game as as one "in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." Now, I agree with most of that but "human being" really sticks in my throat. Is a game to be considered less "violent" because you're killing space aliens or dismembering an orc? I think not. The application of the words "human being" to this bill is just plain damn ignorant.

4. Punishing the retailer.
Where there is an inherent responsibility on the part of the retailer to adhere to age restrictions on video games, I find it completely unacceptable that ONLY the retailers are punished for violating this "new law". In my opinion, if retailers have to shoulder some of the responsibility, then parents have to shoulder the rest. If a parent buys a game that is considered age inappropriate for their child, then they should be fined as well. No point in half-assing the law... right? And, I'd be willing to bet the minute parents started having to pay fines for violating the age restrictions that are clearly marked on a game box, we'd see a drastic reduction in the number of "children" getting their hands on "violent video games".

---

At any rate, I find it somewhat ironic that a former action hero movie star is now responsible for signing an anti-violent video game bill into law. Don't get me wrong, I know Arnold probably struggled with the decision. But, I'm still amused that "Conan" is now saying you can't swing a virtual sword (if you're under the age of 18).

Now, before you start ranting and raving, keep in mind that similar bills have been shot down as unconstitutional. The ESA already has a lawsuit prepared for when the bill goes into effect (January 1st, 2006). It's highly unlikely that this bill will stand.

If anyone can teach the world that problems can be solved without violence it's Arnold. Just take a look at Terminator 2. He didn't kill anybody.

Heh, I love the "response" he has for when that new law is broken.

I agree, though, that this particular iteration probably won't stand longer than it takes to challenge and get it removed.

^-.-^

While the language of the bill is fuzzy, at least we're getting the governator's version, and not Jack Thompson's. I think there probably should be some sort of age restriction in that GTA should not be sold to a ten-year-old. But then again, the last time I was at my local EB-Games, that was already the case.

Parents are being allowed both by the media coverage and now governmental regulations to shirk their responsibilities as parents. It's not like it's difficult to find out a game's content. It's printed on the box.

-Naldiin
(Who has read these comics for years but never posted)

Strange things happen when Hollywood Stars get Political Power :?

Way to go, *Governator* :|

It's things like this that are truly unfortunate. If parents would actually take some responsibility in screening the entertainment that their children imbibe, laws like this wouldn't be necessary. Of course, since it's pretty much illegal to discipline your child nowadays, I guess making violent games illegal is the next logical step.

Maybe next they'll start releasing pax into the atmosphere. :roll:

Man i am getting sick and tired of this BS of putting the blame on the retaler. I use to work at mediaplay and when it came to these game it was not the kid buying them. it was eather the parent buying it for them or they just stole it. Everytime a parent came in to buy a grand theft game and i told them that is was a very violent game they replyed eather "they have already played it at so and so house" or "they realy want this game". Made me sick.

Legislation like this gets a lot of flak because it's anti-capitalist. I don't think that's a good reason to shoot it down. However, the key issue here is holding parents responsible. Parents should be the primary censor on kids' inappropriate consumption of media. Unfortunately, most parents aren't well enough educated on the subject or simply don't pay attention. While I acknowledge that there are a few flaws with this particular bill, I do think it's a step in the right direction.

I remember being carded at a GameStop one day, I thought that was pretty ridiculous. That was a few years ago and I don't have to deal with that anymore, but amusing just the same. I think one of the questions people need to ask themselves is whether putting a stamp on video games will do anything. You'd have to stamp music, television, movies, etc.. (don't we have that already anyways?) and actually enforce them all. This doesn't work in practice and again is why we need to get parents educated and involved in moderating their kids' consumption.

Everytime a parent came in to buy a grand theft game and i told them that is was a very violent game they replyed eather "they have already played it at so and so house" or "they realy want this game". Made me sick.

Hey, maybe we should make parents sit down and watch a 2-minute in-game trailer before allowing them to purchase something. Then you can see that, "Yes, your child will be running over grandma with a Chevy Impala on the way to buy some drugs, meet his ho, and a pick up a few homeboys to spray down the local liquor store."

But hey, let's focus on something more important like manners or education first. Entertainment is just that: Entertainment. If you really want to nip the bud you'll have to address some of the other underlying issues with our society, not just try to put a lid on them to keep them from spilling out.

Originally Posted by tuckerpb2:

Everytime a parent came in to buy a grand theft game and i told them that is was a very violent game they replyed eather "they have already played it at so and so house" or "they realy want this game". Made me sick.

If I were in that situation, I'd say something to the effect of, "you know, if you get hurt in that game, you have to go screw a hooker to get your health back, right?" or the like.

The whole violence thing is pretty much a non-issue with most parents (in as much as they restrict it vs putting up with a tantrum), but the whole hooker sex thing is much more likely to get them to consider what it actually is they're buying for their kids.

Originally Posted by banzaimonkey:

But hey, let's focus on something more important like manners or education first. Entertainment is just that: Entertainment. If you really want to nip the bud you'll have to address some of the other underlying issues with our society, not just try to put a lid on them to keep them from spilling out.

What? You want to treat the cause and not the symptoms? Don't be ridiculous! Everybody gets more money to line their pockets with if you keep treating symptoms. If you actually fix the problem, you'll have to find some new problem to skim from.

^-.-^

I wouldn't get too sick at that tuckerpb2. Some of us believe that by introducing and educating people as early as possible is the best way to assist people into making right decisions.

Otherwise you just have people who are raised in their parents hand till age 18 and then lean on the government as their emotional support and seek to enforce their safe ignorance on society. Then again I don't believe a person can know what beauty is without knowing what atrocity is.

Freud was a dip sh!t