|
|
Governator to defend California game law
Author: Joe MartinPublished: 8th August 2007
The California game law will be back, according to The Termin - uh, I mean - Governer Schwarzenegger
The law, which has long been championed by The Terminator himself, would put yet more barriers between game development and their retail destination. Any game deemed ‘violent’ would have an adults only label and retailers would be fined $1000 for every game they sold to minors – this rating would be separate from the industry regulated ESRB system however.
While the law itself is perfectly reasonable, the idea of ‘game violence’ is very ill-defined and it’s possible that even the turtle-stomping antics of everybody’s favourite plumber brothers could be labelled as adult. The law would also see a majority of games regulated and seen in a similar manner to pornographic material, limiting the sale and availability for such games.
One needs only look at Manhunt 2 to see what an AO rating can do for a game.
It’s also seen as more than a little hypocritical that Arnie, star of films like The Terminator and Conan the Barbarian, is the figurehead for this law. That’s without even mentioning the awful Kindergarten Cop which is, frankly, the worst film ever made.
But maybe I’m only saying that because I expected the film to be more of a toddler slaughter-fest than it really was.
“I signed this important measure to ensure that parents are involved in determining which video games are appropriate for their children. The bill I signed would require that violent video games be clearly labelled and not be sold to children under 18 years old. Many of these games are made for adults and choosing games that are appropriate for kids should be a decision made by their parents. I will vigorously defend this law and appeal it to the next level,” said The Governator in a press release.
Should games be regulated by the government, or is purely a matter for parents? Let the debate rage on in the forums.
Related articles on bit-tech.net
Comments (18)Stats: 0.055 seconds
Of course, there shouldn't need to be laws for this, parents should be censoring what their children watch/play
One rating system to rule them all. legally and sensibly enforced.
Which is what the UK has with the BBFC.
Oh, and it's what Jack Thompson has been campaigning for.
$1000 seems a bit steep...I mean come on, they're only games.
No doubt JT is loving the idea of this...
I know I'll be really looking over my childrens shoulder (whenever I get them (A) ) to make sure they won't play Soldier of Fortune with full gore from age 13 like I did ;)
As for the hypocrisy charge that was my first thought too. I wonder how much of this comes form his own beliefs - though it is highly possible that his have changed from when he was younger. It is also possible that he may acknowledge his past work as violent and claim that it was intended only for an adult audience thus there would be no hypocrisy in his stance.
True, but it's only because everyone else screams "You're persecuting the common man!"
That film is great, full of comedy.
As a result censorship boards see problems everywhere:
Hence the issue with "activist judges" - those who attempt to legislate from the bench by drawing their own definitions to terms used in moral issues. As Tynisar said, the definitions could be abused...that's why we need clear, codified definitions rather than the nebulous ones. We need to avoid the idea of "I can't define obscenity, but I know it when I see it." THAT can then make a system like this work.
The thing that drives me crazy about it - they can do that for dog breeds, so why not this? The whole Kennel Club idea is drawn upon the "written breed standard." If someone (like a show judge) bases a decision on that but deviates from an expected outcome, the reasoning is clearly laid out. Surely there can be clearer ideas in this definition than "a properly sharp snout."