New Californian censorship law for games in the near future?

What if it wasn't just games like Fallout 3? What if the ratings board started classifying any game where humans (whatever that means in video games) could be hurt? Essentially, all video games except maybe sports games and some of the games made for kids under age 10. Heck, there might even be a case against Zork because you can kill the thief in the game. (Though Leisure Suit Larry might pass muster, now that I think about it.)

P.S. We've actually got an 18+ rating here allready called AO (Adults Only). I don't think it has the force of law but it sure seems to be taboo to sell an AO game. I've never, ever seen one in a retail store.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,401
Location
Kansas City
What if it wasn't just games like Fallout 3? What if the ratings board started classifying any game where humans (whatever that means in video games) could be hurt? Essentially, all video games except maybe sports games and some of the games made for kids under age 10. Heck, there might even be a case against Zork because you can kill the thief in the game. (Though Leisure Suit Larry might pass muster, now that I think about it.)

I guess it comes down to if the organisation responsible for ratings is sensible about it, independent and not politically motivated.
 
Joined
Apr 4, 2009
Messages
526
Location
Auckland, New Zealand
I don't think requiring a title to be rated (for sex, violence or whatever), and having a label to that effect and making it illegal to sell to minors is censorship. If that's the case here I don't understand why it's so wrong. I pretty much agree with Dwagginz.

I don't think games should be singled out though, that I agree with. But some things aren't suitable for kids, and it should be illegal for vendors to sell them to kids. I live in what I consider a largely progressive country. There's an independant ratings board who classify movies and games and whatnot and I think that's an important thing to do. They don't censor things. They classify. If you take the most recent Fallout games they're rated R18, the highest restriction, which means they shouldn't be sold to under 18 year olds. I think that's fine. I can't see a problem with a similar system.

At the end of the day I'd rather have a strict and enforced rating system, than actual censorship where a body would cut and censor products based on what they thought was appropriate or not. That's censorships.
I'm sure that's what happens here. If a product is rejected, it can be either challenged or edited and resubmitted, but it cannot be sold here if rejected.

Manhunt 2's fight with the BBFC is a great example of what happens here.
 
Joined
Jul 17, 2010
Messages
655
Location
England, UK
I guess it comes down to if the organisation responsible for ratings is sensible about it, independent and not politically motivated.

Good luck finding that group! :D

Seriously, if all this was a law saying that games rated M needed to have an ID shown to buy, and was illegal to sell to minors, similar to current cigarette law, that would be one thing (better still if all media content was handled uniformly). But this law is very vague about what would be made illegal ... and that is the issue.

In other words, they are saying 'give us the power and TRUST that we'll do the right thing' ...
 
Joined
Oct 18, 2006
Messages
15,025
Ooops, made an error above. The law is about doing harm to the IMAGE of a human, so Zork is safe. As long as you don't go putting some graphics mod in. We'll have to leave Rogue-like game's use of the @ symbol for later court rulings. ;)

Anyway, I did a little digging through some old GameSpot articles and found a link to the bill - which didn't work, but the URL had enough info to hunt it down. Here's the full text of the latest version I could find. You might find more here.

The bit I like to harp on endlessly is this bit:
Enables the player to virtually inflict serious injury upon
images of human beings or characters with substantially human
characteristics…
This fails horribly in video games which have no need to connect with reality at all. I think it will include elves and dwarves but what about orcs? There's a very smooth spectrum between total monster and human being when it comes to video games. (Comics, too - Bugs Bunny looks more like a human than a rabbit, would he count as human?) Plus they don't have to stay with one shape. Werewolves are a nice example of that.

You can take this from the other side, too. Statues look human but clearly aren't. But doesn't this law say that harming a statue (which has substantially human characteristics) in a video game makes it violent?

Oh, and I love the bit about mentally abusing video game characters. I guess the Sim games are adult only. We know about all the Sim torture going on out there!
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,401
Location
Kansas City
New article - Yee gives his side of the story.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,401
Location
Kansas City
Look, I'm a strong First Amendment person. This bill is drafted narrowly. It's not against all video games; it's not against all violent video games. It's only against this small section of ultraviolent video games. This bill will sustain anybody who wants to make more atrocious kinds of violent games—they can still do that, they can still sell that, they can still make them available to adults. Interestingly, kids can have access to these ultraviolent video games even under my bill. All you have to do is go to your parents, talk to your parents, and if your parents want to get it for you, they can go to the store and get it for you.

Bullshit! Complete and utter bullshit! Grade A, top of the line bullshit! How exactly is this bill drafted narrowly to just focus on ultraviolent video games?

I love how he says he is a first amendment strong person. Like that means anything at all. Actually, what the hell does that mean? That he is weak on other amendments? He works out regularly with the first one?

Rush Limbaugh's point of view on this subject.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
How exactly is this bill drafted narrowly to just focus on ultraviolent video games?
Of course it is! "Ultraviolent" in this case means "a game where any form of harm can come to any form of human-like thing." What? Isn't that the term you use all the time? :rolleyes:

No point in getting worked up. The courts have come down against it. There are enough 'friend of the court' briefs against it to make a Wheel-of-Time sized book. Heck, if you read the article closely, Yee says he is 'looking for guidance' not looking for a win. This law is doomed.
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,401
Location
Kansas City
Has anyone ever made a relatively clear definition f what's "ultraviolent" ?

I do know several very sensitive people, who actually, really can't stand any (or t least much) violence at all.
What I want to say with this is that violence is very much also a matter of sensitivity. There are some people who are more sensitive than others, and of course they can't stand much violence than others can.

To stand "ultraviolence", I guess with a reverse-deduction, it needs to be very non-sensitive, I guess.

Which means that the definition of violence is a subjective thing, too. Not completely (because blood is blood), but to ome extend.

So, clear definitions might even be hard to make.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
22,300
Location
Old Europe
So, clear definitions might even be hard to make.

Hell no! There needs to be no such definition. They need to leave this alone, period. I've seen some pretty messed up art out there and yet that crap gets a free pass.

I will not buy any more Silent Hill games because I can't handle them at all. It's too messed up. Give me a normal zombie, ghost, demon, or monster any day of the week, but that stuff I can't handle. You know what though, I will never take any position that says Silent Hill should be banned. Who gives me the right to decide what people should or shouldn't play? No one that's who. As for those sensitive people out there, well they need to change the channel/not buy the game because some people enjoy that kind of stuff.

This makes me rethink my position on our own P&R sections political cartoons. Who the hell am I to say what should or shouldn't be posted? No one that's who.

When all is said in done, despite all of my rage, I am still just a rat in a cage. ;)
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
As for those sensitive people out there, well they need to change the channel/not buy the game because some people enjoy that kind of stuff.

Which is what they are learning. "We" (I'm moderating in such a forum) are telling them to explicitely leave what does them no good.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
22,300
Location
Old Europe
I don't get it. They are complaining about something being too violent, yet they keep watching/buying it? Are they stupid or something? Not to be insensitive, but only stupid people keep pushing the button that zaps you ;)

My first experience with Silent Hill III was enough to turn me off ever playing another one again. I know I don't like it so I don't buy it.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
No, at first, they just don't know that they re too sensitive. They do try to be and behave like everyone else. And then they wonder why they feel so … different.

It's like … try this picture : You have an allergy against some kind of food, but you don't realize it. And thn you keep on eating this particular food because everyone else does it, too, and then you wonder why you feel afterwards so … bad, meanwhile everyone else just doesn't. This makes you wonder at one point, and only if you visit a doctor he or she might help you find out that there is actually an allergy behind it !

And then you've ot to learn to avoid it.

It's imilar with let's say movies, parties, loud concerts etc. . These people just want to be like everyone else, but they can't. They feel … well, different. When they copmplain about loudness, hey might receive an "oh, don't be so picky, it can't be that loud !" by "normal" people.

It has also something to do with peer pressure. If you're within a group of friends, and you realize that you don't feel too well after visiting a loud and full party with LOTS of people - then you'll have to fight peer pressure, too. You might want to be within your circle of friends but you feel bad in the wrong environments (or with the wrong movies) and everyone else just doesn't.

It's a thing of self-realization, actually. And this is hard work at first.
Because perhaps people might want to persuade and that "it just can't be that loud", one is "too picky", "rtoo touchy", and perhaps even that "there must be something wrong with you". It isn't. People re just different, nothing else.

But sensitive people often suffer because their sensitivity just isn't acknowledged as something just different. People might begin making jokes or do as if the sensitive person is just an hypochonder.

If sensiive people just learn to stay away from what doesn't themgood, then it is a "win-win situation" for both parties : The sensiive ones feel better, and the not-so-sensitive ones just can have some fun. ;)

But until this knowledge of sensitivity is spread - and generally accepted in society as not being something curious, but only as something different - as long as this is not done, there might still be discussions and quarrels between people pro and contra violence, in movies or in games, or example.

Because people don't realize the difference between people(s).
Because right now everyone assumes that a certain kind of being is "the norm" and everything else (who doesn't belong to that norm) is just … wrong. Or sick. Or a Freak at least.

And this is why I loved the movie called "How o train your dragon" so much : There IS someone who is ENTIRELY ifferent than the norm - AND he is able to enhance the society - IF the people decide to listen to him !
As I always say : We need many, many more people like "Hiccup", the protagonist from this movie. Because i believe, if people would decide to listen to these … "aliens", then society might become a little bit better. :)
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
22,300
Location
Old Europe
I've got no problems with weirdos or freaks because I am one of those. I love my geekiness because I pretty much hate everything "normal" people enjoy, but I do not expect to be treated any differently than anyone else.

As long as they realize this and don't go on some crusade then they are 'all right' in my book (not that it matters though ;)). It's these "normal" people that piss me off more than the freaks. Freaks I can understand and wish they would just come to terms with being different.

Normal people though…..they think they know best for everyone and try to shove their ideals down our throat. Get yourself an over opinionated normal person and you'll soon have a crusade on your hands against some kind of nonsense.

Even have those kind of politicians over here in Taiwan where chaos pretty much rules the roost (not literally, but my favorite expression for Taiwan is "Organized Chaos"). They try to force everyone into their way of thinking to get elected. Once elected they normally drop the rhetoric they started. It's funny to watch. I guess it's not that different from American politics :)
 
Last edited:
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
I understand what I mean. :)

However, I often say to me this : "If I want to look into the future, then I visit a board of HSPs." Because this sensitivity might allow them to "sense" and perhaps even "predict" things into the future. I mean, the more sensitive someone is, the easier this person picks up ... how can I call it ? vibes ? earth-quakes ? developments ? - Well, I hope you get what I mean.

This is - at least in my point of view - a trait that is - as I assume - somehow, somewhat better developed within sensitive people. They get "what's in the air" much sooner than anyone else, and they are able to form it into words earlier than others, too. Not necessarily, but sometimes.

To me, listening to sensitive people is like ... as someone write in a book about computers ca. 15 years or more : "i I want to look into the future of computing, then I buy a Mac". It's because Macs are so much ... user-friendly, above everything, I think (that's my personal opinion, of course ;) ), and the design, too ... Because Microsoft borrows so much from Mac designs, it was and still is a little bit like looking into the future. Remember Apple's Newton ? ;)

It's as if the people there get something that's "in the air tonight" sooner than everyone else, in terms of computing designs. Or the MIT, where one Doug Engelbart designed the very first computer Mouse in the late 60s !

People like Engelbart are those people ... They "catch" something an form it so ... that everyone might be able to use it. Some people just think ahead in time. And sometimes, their time has just not come. Sometimes it needs decades or even centuries until their point of view is accepted by the general society. Like Giordano Bruno, for example.
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
22,300
Location
Old Europe
Who gives me the right to decide what people should or shouldn't play? No one that's who.
They do - when they demand that you pay for the after effects. Motorcycle helmets were a great example of this. Why should people be forced to wear them? It's their skull, why can't they risk it if they want? Because, if the motorcyclist manages to survive, society gets stuck with the bill the doctors charge to keep him/her alive.

That would work here, too, if there were good evidence that growing up with violent video games causes people to commit violent crimes or some such. But there ain't, so the whole thing falls down.

Anyway, today was court day! But who's got time to cover a case like this on an election day?? N P Ahr, that's who! Here's the morning preview story and here's the report from the hearing.

And, if you really want to get into this, here's the official transcript. It's got some interesting stuff.

Justice Sotomayor: Would a video game that portrayed a Vulcan as opposed to a human being, being maimed and tortured, would that be covered by the act?

Morazzini (for California): No, it wouldn't, Your Honor, because the act is only directed towards the range of options that are able to be inflicted on a human being.
Eh??? That's not how I read the law. But doing the law that way is even more silly. There are supposed to be psychological reasons for keeping games with violence out of kids' hands. Are we really supposed to believe that killing people harms kids but killing vulcans does not?

Justice Ginsburg: …does California have any kind of an advisory opinion, an office that will view these videos and say, yes, this belongs in this, what did you call it, deviant violence, and this one is just violent but not deviant? Is there … any kind of opinion that the … seller can get to know which games can be sold to minors and which ones can't?

Morazzini: Not that I'm aware of, Justice Ginsburg.

Justice Scalia: You should consider creating such a one. You might call it the California office of censorship. It would judge each of these videos one by one. That would be very nice.
It sure is nice to be on Scalia's side for once. ;)

The transcript is actually a pretty good read. Roberts and Breyer cut into the game companies pretty well.

Chief Justice Roberts: Does the First Amendment protect the sale of that video to minors?

Smith (for the video game industry): My position is that there is not a violence exception to the First Amendment for minors and there should not be.

Chief Justice Roberts: So your position is that the First Amendment does not, cannot, no matter what type of law, whether this one is vague or not, that the State legislature cannot pass a law that says you may not sell to a 10-year-old a video in which they set schoolgirls on fire.
Ouch. Roberts has a point here. While the evidence for video game violence effects is disputed, those studies check current video games. Could somebody deliberatly make a game that would mess with kids' heads big time? Dora the Explorer goes to Uganda and joins the Lord's Resistance Army or some such crazy thing?
 
Joined
Aug 3, 2008
Messages
8,401
Location
Kansas City
They do - when they demand that you pay for the after effects. Motorcycle helmets were a great example of this. Why should people be forced to wear them? It's their skull, why can't they risk it if they want? Because, if the motorcyclist manages to survive, society gets stuck with the bill the doctors charge to keep him/her alive.

Irrelevant. Games do not cause the kind of harm and costly medical bills that people without seatbelts or helmets would cause.

That would work here, too, if there were good evidence that growing up with violent video games causes people to commit violent crimes or some such. But there ain't, so the whole thing falls down.

Exactly! There is none because a normal human knows the difference between fantasy and reality. It's like saying that comic books, violent novels or violent movies caused "normal" people to go insane.

Ouch. Roberts has a point here. While the evidence for video game violence effects is disputed, those studies check current video games. Could somebody deliberatly make a game that would mess with kids' heads big time? Dora the Explorer goes to Uganda and joins the Lord's Resistance Army or some such crazy thing?

Exactly, why are the parents letting them play this "made up" game? If you want your freedom stripped in the name of the children that's fine and dandy. I, however, think it would be a big mistake to do so. You are either free to express yourself in a game or you are not.
 
Joined
Feb 3, 2007
Messages
5,347
Location
Taiwan
Argument of the motorcar industry against Tucker :

"If a car needs seat belts, then it CAN'T be sure !"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1948_Tucker_Sedan

Exactly! There is none because a normal human knows the difference between fantasy and reality. It's like saying that comic books, violent novels or violent movies caused "normal" people to go insane.

One step back, please : Ouzr consciousness knows the difference between reality and fantasy.

We yet don't know what our unconsciousness makes up of it.

And yet - we are still to a great part dependent on our unconsciousness. It makes our body work. Our consciousness doesn't do it alone.

One example : I once read that our visual senses system regards children as pople who are far away - and threfore smaller.
And AFTER THAT our system realizes that they re children. Within fragments of seconds. Which might be too late, if your are too fast with(in) your car or motor-cycle.
I read this 10 years or more or less ago … And I think I remember it was even a result of a scientific study.

But anyway, this example shows that our senses and their processing are something we cannot be conscious about. So to say.

Or the full moon. If it is close to the horizon, it appears to be much, much bigger than it really is. Another trick of our sensory system(s).

Last month I read about an UK study saying that watching violence on TV makes people become (as a tendency) de-sensitize. Which means they kind of "forget" to feel with the vctims, I guess.

Edit : Found an article about it : http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/lifestyl...t-tv-video-scenes-desensitise-teen-boys-study

And by chance I found a similar, yet older article on a related topic : http://www.joystiq.com/2006/07/31/study-video-games-desensitize-people-to-violence/
 
Last edited:
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
22,300
Location
Old Europe
Oh, I didn't know there was another one named Tucker, too ! :lol:
 
Joined
Nov 5, 2006
Messages
22,300
Location
Old Europe
Back
Top Bottom