 |
|
|
| |
ECA To Submit Gamer Petition In Game Violence Case
by Leigh Alexander
|
|
| |
|
May 12, 2010
|
| |
As California's infamous game violence bill goes to the U.S. Supreme Court for consideration, the Entertainment Consumers Association is aiming to add the voice of gamers to the case.
The ECA will submit an amicus brief -- a document courts accept from parties outside of a case offering information intended to help in their decision. The group, which aims to represent the interests of entertainment consumers, is also collecting signatures for a petition to be submitted as an official court document alongside the brief.
The bill in question would restrict the sale of video games to minors. Authored by senator Leland Yee and supported by Governor Schwarzenegger, it has more than once been ruled unconstitutional on free speech grounds, but an appeal with Yee's support has once again brought it under the Court's consideration.
The Supreme Court will hear the case later this year or early next and decide whether to agree with the prior findings. Says ECA VP and general counsel Jennifer Mercurio, "Agreeing would mean that they believe that video games are, and should continue to be, First Amendment protected speech, just like movies and music."
"The Court disagreeing would mean that video games should be treated differently, which the ECA strongly believes to be unconstitutional and could lead to new bills and laws curtailing video game access in states across the country," she adds.
ECA president Hal Halpin says of the group's brief and petition: "These documents will provide the court with one clear collective voice with which to vocalize our position and reinforce that we agree with the lower court findings: games, like music and movies, are protected free speech."
|
| |
|
|
Especially if that means I have to *gulp* reprogram certain things because Johnny and Suzie picked up my game. Kids, please go play something else. Please. I want to keep making my games lol.
BSing over :)
The other problem here is that Yee is completely ignoring the fact that video games have a rating system. A fact he may not be aware of because he doesn't know anything about the entertainment products that he is trying to restrict. Yee needs to do his homework before stepping up to the podium. The games industry provides a rating system just like movies do, and if we would just enforce the ESRB ratings in the same way that we do the movie ratings we wouldn't need idiot bills creating special rules for games.
Yee does know what the game industry is doing to accomplish the goal his law is trying to accomplish. He just chooses to ignore the facts. That is the problem. He chooses ignorance because it gives him a demon to fight that attracts voters.
Yet, the moment they were made aware of the charges, they reversed them and fixed the bug that allowed it. All within a few days of the first charges.
Hardly shady.
"The bill in question would restrict the sale of video games to minors"
Is this somehow different than the G/PG/M/R13/R16/R18 system that's already (presumably) in place? Isn't that a system that already works and is enforced? What does this all have to do with free speech?
Could someone explain what this all means?
Thanks :)
Film ratings are enforced voluntarily. There are no laws in any state or on the federal level that enforces those ratings. Any minor that is turned away from an R rated movie is done so at the behest of movie studios and theatre chains.
As it is without this law, Game ratings are enforced in exactly the same way. Voluntarily. This law would change that and make the government the people who decide which games are "too violent" to be sold to minors.
Along with the petition they will be filing an amicus brief. This is an actual statement on the facts regarding the case. The petition is just to add a little more weight to the brief.
So if the age ratings are accurate, and under 16s (18s?) shouldn't be getting their hands on GTA whatever, why shouldn't that be legally binding?
Isn't pornography, alcohol, and tobacco legally restricted to 18s (In most places) ?
It's not like legally restricting film and games to certain ages is full censorship, they're still out there. It just sends a message that certain things have certain values.
Are pornographic movies legally restricted to 18+? Is that restricting free speech? What about pornographic games?
Or am I in over my head? ;)