Print 69 comment(s) - last by Jcruiser89.. on Aug 9 at 1:28 PM

The Governator will defend California's position on violent video game ban to minors

U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte has ruled California’s 2005 video game law that banned the sale of violent software to minors as unconstitutional.

The law has been stuck in the legal system for the past two years, since it was signed by California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in October 2005. The law would have gone into effect on January 1, 2006, had Judge Whyte not have issued an injunction just days before the new year blocking the law.

On Monday, Judge Whyte ruled, “The evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, internet sites or other speech-related exposures.”

“The court, although sympathetic to what the legislature sought to do by the Act, finds that the evidence does not establish the required nexus between the legislative concerns about the well-being of minors and the restrictions on speech required by the Act,” read the ruling.

California State Senator Leland Yee, one of the original supporters of the bill, said in a press release, “I am shocked that the Court struck down this common-sense law. AB 1179 worked to empower parents by giving them the ultimate decision over whether or not their children should be playing in a world of violence and murder.”

Yee continued, “We simply cannot trust the industry to regulate itself. I strongly urge the Governor and the Attorney General to appeal this decision to a higher court and to the Supreme Court if necessary until our children are protected from excessively violent video games.”

It appears that Governor Schwarzenegger heard Yee’s cries, and said in another press release that he will appeal the ruling: “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,” added Schwarzenegger.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By Cobra Commander on 8/7/2007 10:15:56 AM , Rating: 2
So is this basically whatever the State uhv Caleefornyah deems "violent" or Mature-rated (via ESRB) games?

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By FITCamaro on 8/7/07, Rating: 0
RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By masher2 on 8/7/2007 10:33:03 AM , Rating: 5
> " It's already illegal to sell M rated games to anyone under 17. Same as its illegal to let people under 17 into R rated movies or sell them R-rated DVDs. So theres no need for a California specific law."

No, the ESRB ratings are self-regulatory only. It's not illegal to sell Mature-rated games to minors, though many retailers do have policies which forbid it.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By Vanilla Thunder on 8/7/2007 10:36:00 AM , Rating: 2
It's already illegal to sell M rated games to anyone under 17. Same as its illegal to let people under 17 into R rated movies or sell them R-rated DVDs.

Don't get me wrong. I think this proposal is ridiculous, and I agree with the fact that parents should be more pro-active in these situations. But the sad truth is, rarely does anyone get carded for a movie or CD, much less a game. The 17 year old kid behind the counter could usually care less about your 13 year old buying a GTA game.


RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By BioRebel on 8/7/2007 10:48:42 AM , Rating: 3
Wanna bet? Any Gamestop or EB Games employee that gets caught selling an M rated game to a minor is immediately fired from the company, along with anyone else who was on that shift.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By Nightskyre on 8/7/2007 11:12:15 AM , Rating: 5
Actually, I am a Gamestop employee (don't blame me, I started at EB) and the policy is as follows:

Card anyone if you have the slightest doubt. If you sell a game to an underage person, you and your manager are immediately terminated even if s/he is not at the store at that time . If the ESRB sting catches you doing it, they will fine Gamestop $10,000 (How that is enforceable, I'm not sure, but it's not relevant). If you are selling an M rated game, you are required to read off the list of reasons why that game is M rated (off the back). I've had occasions where parents have gone wide-eyed and told me to forget about the sale (though most often they wave and "yeah yeah" me off).

Is it the parents' responsibility to police their kids actions? Absolutely. At least it sometimes works a little to read the back.

I will say, though, it's almost funny when I look a kid square in the face who just got their license and tell them I'm not going to sell them a game. I get the traditional whine "What? Really? Oh, come on..." etc etc. When I see an employee of another retailer selling M rated games to underage kids, I hear the voice of Max Meridius in the back of my head: "Hold the line! Stand fast!"

Sadly, it doesn't work. I should pretend to work for the ESRB.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By The Sword 88 on 8/7/2007 11:37:31 AM , Rating: 2
Why does the manager get terminated if you screw up?

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By masher2 on 8/7/2007 11:44:12 AM , Rating: 5
When you're in charge, you're responsible for what happens on your watch.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By Grast on 8/7/2007 11:47:05 AM , Rating: 2
It is called responsiblity. The manager is responsible for the store at all times. This ensure the manager hires employees that can be trusted and ensures the manager is properly training their employees.

RESPONSIBILITY..... This is the name of the game in this topic.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By Oregonian2 on 8/7/2007 8:30:54 PM , Rating: 2
The company's CEO also is responsible for the store's action, perhaps (s)he should resign when such a sale happens? :-)

Seems like a good way to take out a manager you don't like when you're about to quit anyway due to the manager's "personality".

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By dude on 8/8/2007 9:29:38 PM , Rating: 2
Unfortunately, this will probably never happen. Only the lower "drones" will have this "rule" affect them.

CEO's are paid to sit back and smile as they rake in their usual 100+ dollars an hour.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By peritusONE on 8/7/2007 12:15:18 PM , Rating: 2
As a part time Gamestop employee myself, I wanted to say that what Nightskyre posted is 100% true. However, what I've been told is that you are fired, the store manager is fired, and if there happens to be another manager besides the store manager working at that exact moment, they are fired as well.

It's a completely ridiculous rule IMO, as they can't expect the managers to babysit. If they want to start people out at minimum wage, they can't expect 100% compliance 100% of the time. Again, that's just my opinion, not the opinion of Gamestop themselves.

There are a few parents, though, that will not let their children purchase games after looking at the rating and subsequent reasons. Kudos to those parents, I guess, atleast they understand the system and why it was put into place.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By Moishe on 8/7/2007 12:34:06 PM , Rating: 2
Seems like an easy way to get your manager fired if you were wanting to quit anyway... But I think overall it's pretty fair. The responsibility system works well. Managers know that they're butt is in the vise if their employees fail to obey that rule and so they would make an extra tough impression on the employees about that rule. I know I would.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By SaintSinner1 on 8/7/2007 1:28:33 PM , Rating: 2
So if the RESPONSIBILITY is the name of the game they should fire person who hire store manager and the more all the way to Gamestop CEO !!!

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By Moishe on 8/7/2007 2:19:37 PM , Rating: 2
it has to stop somewhere and the store manager is the first person who is responsible.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By Spuke on 8/7/2007 3:41:38 PM , Rating: 2
Managers know that they're butt is in the vise if their employees fail to obey that rule and so they would make an extra tough impression on the employees about that rule.
You can impress all you want but the bottom line is you are at the mercy of your employees. If they feel they want you fired, all they have to do is get caught breaking the rules. And what happens if you're the one that catches them? Are you going to essentially fire yourself? Try explaining that to your wife and kids at home.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By Maharajamd on 8/7/2007 12:57:52 PM , Rating: 3
Babysit? The store is like 20x20ft. It shouldn't be too hard lol...

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By BioRebel on 8/7/2007 12:17:20 PM , Rating: 1
I coulda sworn that anyone else on shift at the time got terminated as well for not saying anything to the person making the sale or something like that. Either way I catch so much fucking flack from 16 year olds just because they cant buy a game.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By Spivonious on 8/7/2007 12:48:23 PM , Rating: 2
Wow, did that change recently? I worked at Gamestop a few years ago and all they would do is write you up. If you did it a lot, then sure it would lead to termination, but it wasn't automatic. And the manager surely wasn't held responsible for anything you did.

It's pointless anyway, since most parents wouldn't even listen to you as you pointed out why the game was rated M and would buy it anyway. My favorite was the group of kids that would pay a random adult outside to buy the game for them.

To the poster above, it is not illegal in anyway to let minors into R-rated movies, sell them M-rated games, or sell them R-rated DVDs. Everything is up to the venue/retailer to enforce. Ratings are merely guidelines.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By Maharajamd on 8/7/2007 12:55:51 PM , Rating: 2
That's a bunch of bull. I agree with the judge. It isn't the gov'ts place to say who, what, where, when, and how. Its the parents. And sadly, that job is hardly ever fulfilled. The rise in the divorse rate has more to do with adolescent violence then any video game does.

You quoted a line from a very graphic movie. Would you let your children watch that? Would you let them play GTA? I sure as hell wouldn't. But I don't believe I SHOULDN'T be able to decide that for myself, and not have the government tell me what my children can and can not do. Communism anyone?

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By Wightout on 8/7/2007 1:41:58 PM , Rating: 2

By Chernobyl68 on 8/7/2007 2:57:01 PM , Rating: 2
actually, my mom liked gladiator more than X-men. she said she could handle the graphic violence in gladiator better than the fist fights in X-men because it was in a historical context.

go figure.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By Gneisenau on 8/7/2007 3:21:25 PM , Rating: 2
Actually, I think what the judge was saying is you can't single out games over other forms or entertainment. I may be wrong however. That argument is used a lot in CA. Someone always wants to pass a law against some specific product and the law forbids singling out one product from a group.

By Vanilla Thunder on 8/7/2007 4:47:34 PM , Rating: 2
Wanna bet? Any Gamestop or EB Games employee that gets caught selling an M rated game to a minor is immediately fired from the company, along with anyone else who was on that shift.

First off, this is a ridiculous way to enforce policy. So now for $7/hr. it's your responsibility to be the morality police too? No way. I spent many years working at a Blockbuster, and I guarantee kids bought and rented what they wanted. The fact that these are both "games only" stores adds another side to this story. I doubt any of these "rules" apply at B&M stores like Wally World or Target. And as a side note, do you have to provide proof of age when ordering games online? When it comes down to it, it is not my job to act as judge and jury for someone else's kid. My $0.02.


By piroroadkill on 8/7/2007 11:49:07 AM , Rating: 2
No, he couldn't care less. That's why he would sell it.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By CrimsonFrost on 8/7/2007 1:47:01 PM , Rating: 2
Meh, I normally would be against such a law, but In leu of parents not doing their f-ing jobs, I guess the law would suffice. Really there is no reason to be against it, if you're under 17, you shouldn't be playing the game, end of story.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By sviola on 8/7/2007 2:58:48 PM , Rating: 2
That's easy to solve. If a kid does something like the columbine shooting, throw the parents in jail, after all, they are responsible for their kids and should be liable for their actions...I bet more parents will be monitoring their kids better.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By techfuzz on 8/7/2007 10:49:31 AM , Rating: 2
I'm wondering that too. It's already illegal to sell M rated games to anyone under 17. Same as its illegal to let people under 17 into R rated movies or sell them R-rated DVDs. So theres no need for a California specific law.

The under 17 stuff is not a law and never has been. It is only a voluntary rating system developed and recommended by the MPAA. It is up to the theater owner to decide whether to enforce the suggested ratings or just not abide by them at all.

Some movies are released without ratings and owners must decide who to admit. Even some widespread release movies are show in limited runs prior to obtaining their rating from the board.

It's only illegal when a law is made saying that it is illegal. In the case of rated movies and games, there are no laws governing their ratings or sales to minors.

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By glynor on 8/7/2007 11:58:45 AM , Rating: 2
In this case it's the ESRB not the MPAA. They're talking about Video Games, not movies. Pay attention a little better there. ;-)

RE: Going Beyond ESRB or what?
By Polynikes on 8/7/2007 10:56:49 AM , Rating: 2
I think you're absolutely right. It's funny that this is happening in such a liberal state. Ahnold doesn't fit in the political system of such a state.

By killerroach on 8/7/2007 2:23:54 PM , Rating: 4
These video game bans create some strange bedfellows, though... "traditional values Republicans" like them because it allows them to play the role of culture police, while "strong-state Democrats" like them because it allows them to have greater government influence over society.

When it comes to issues that most of us would deride as naked acts of paternalism, they sadly tend to carry wide bipartisan support. Personally, I just think it's the government's job to protect people from other people, and not to protect people from themselves.

By Chernobyl68 on 8/7/2007 2:50:06 PM , Rating: 2
they won't help stores not sell M-rated games to minors, and so they want to prevent them from being made at all.

what's the big deal arny
By GhandiInstinct on 8/7/2007 10:19:45 AM , Rating: 4
There are no studies that show violent video games causing crime.

Where as movies have a much bigger influence because kids can relate, connect and mimic more and easier to film.

I don't get the point in wasting time and money on this law, it's absolutely pointless.

We need kids playing video games, not joining gangs and robbing 7-11's.

RE: what's the big deal arny
By kelmon on 8/7/2007 11:06:13 AM , Rating: 3
Surely it's sensible. If a game (or anything else for that matter) has been deemed to be unsuitable for children then that was done for a reason and it shouldn't be sold to those under the age. I entirely agree that kids are better playing games than joining gangs (although I'll also note that those aren't the only options without getting into a "when I was young..." conversation) but what's the problem with not restricting those games to non-graphic violence games?

I'm frankly puzzled that anyone thinks that it's OK for children to play Man Hunt or the like. Regardless as to whether or not studies say that it causes/does not cause violent behavior it's simply inappropriate material. Sure, you can push the responsibility to the parents but it's a lot easier to control this at the source. No one suggests selling cars to children and making it a parent's choice as to whether to allow it or not so if the box says it's not OK then it should not be sold to children.

By GhandiInstinct on 8/7/2007 11:28:53 AM , Rating: 2
It's reasonable to presume that these parents raise children that are not affected by the imagery in games like Manhunt and rather play it for what it is, a video game rather than a kill simulator.

Once the children are taught to discern between right and wrong then a game like Manhunt will have no affect on them.

RE: what's the big deal arny
By Grast on 8/7/2007 11:53:44 AM , Rating: 2

It is simple. The parent is responsible for their childeren ; NOT THE GOVERNMENT. I believe laws such as this are just plain FASCIST and COMMUNIST in spririt. The government and every other citizen in this country has NO RIGHT to tell me how to raise my child.

If I deem that ManHunter is the type of game I wish my child to play, no one has the RIGHT to tell me otherwise.


RE: what's the big deal arny
By Moishe on 8/7/2007 12:44:04 PM , Rating: 2
That may have been true at one time, but the government has imposed it's will on everyone for a long time. "For the children" is the excuse for a great many bad things.

The fact is there is a reasonable balance between oppression and guidance that needs to be found. Using your logic I can say that I can punch my kid in the mouth every night before bed... he's my child and I can raise him how I want. There should be some way to stop abuse and in the "old days" some other member of that person's community would do the job. Because we have no real community we've mostly lost that benefit. It's reasonable to expect that there should be an agency to act on behalf of the oppressed and downtrodden. It's a slippery slope because for every few decent parents there is one fool who has no love or commonsense in them.

RE: what's the big deal arny
By Wightout on 8/7/2007 1:57:24 PM , Rating: 2
How is it that you see punching a child and deciding whether they can play a game related?

Abuse involves and entirely different line of the law. Your rights as an American end when someone else's begin. Punching your child imposes on their rights. Deciding on your child's behalf whether a game is appropriate for his/her age/maturity level does not violate their rights in the slightest...

RE: what's the big deal arny
By Moishe on 8/7/2007 2:26:05 PM , Rating: 2
I'm talking about the "right to parent anyway I choose".

My comment is not about games it's about parenting and while my example may not be perfect I think my point stands. Parents do not have ultimate say in every aspect of parenting.

As far as games are concerned I do think parents should have majority of control but I don't think it's unreasonable to hold children away from violent games. We do it with alcohol, drugs, movies, why not games? Games are far more immersive than movies are.

See, damage is not just physical. You can give your 10 year old son a copy of manhunt and think you're such a great dad... The damage is subtle and you just can't see it immediately like you could if you took a fist to him.

RE: what's the big deal arny
By Wightout on 8/7/2007 2:59:04 PM , Rating: 2
The Gov't does not regulate the ages that watch movies (save for Porn I believe). Nor should it!

I do believe that violent games have an affect on the people who play them, just as a violent book has an effect on the people who read them. However I do not think it has a negative effect on people's behavior. Just as I don't believe living in a plastic bubble your whole life has a positive influence.

The news (I would think) has a far greater influence on people due to the fact that what they are watching is real. Does that mean the news should be censored? Hell No! How does this solve anything?

Video Games that have a violent nature can be just as effective at relieving stress as punching a pillow or going for a walk IMO.

This is all screwed up...
By knipfty on 8/7/2007 11:51:59 AM , Rating: 2
A minor can get an abortion without parental consent, but can't buy a video game without the same consent?

Am I seeing this correctly?

RE: This is all screwed up...
By rcc on 8/7/2007 12:45:57 PM , Rating: 2
There are several inequities in the system.

You can vote, before you can drink in some states. Legally.

You can join the military and go to war, before you can drink. Legally.

It's interesting that the 18-21 year old voters have either never been able to change this, or haven't cared enough to do so.

RE: This is all screwed up...
By Spivonious on 8/7/2007 12:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
in some states? The drinking age is a federal law, not state.

Personally I think we should take a tip from Germany and set the drinking age at 16, since that's when everyone starts drinking here anyway. If it wasn't taboo then people wouldn't go crazy with it.

Then just make the DUI penalties super-stiff, like first offense: 1 year suspension and $1000 fine, all next offenses permanent suspension and $10000 fine. I think people would stop drinking and driving real fast.

RE: This is all screwed up...
By Grast on 8/7/2007 1:19:51 PM , Rating: 2

I agree. However your penalities should be greater. 1st offense; 5 year supension and 10,000 dollar fine. Plus, if caught driving during suspension, the person goes to jail for the term of their suspension. The way I see it. A car is basically a 3000 pound gun. It is capable of killing numerous people very quickly. If you drink and drive, this action should have the same repercussions as using a gun in a crime. In California, the use of a gun in a crime is an immediate 10 year enhancement.

We have to take a stand. If the current penalties for crime are not detering the crime, the penalities are not strict enough.

This line of thinking could lead to Judge Dread like punishments but I can live with that.


RE: This is all screwed up...
By Spivonious on 8/8/2007 1:17:19 PM , Rating: 2
Ha, Judge Dredd was a fun movie. As long as we maintain due process and all that, severe punishments are fine in my book.

If caught driving during suspension...if you're not drunk, add a year to suspension, if you are drunk then move up to permanent suspension.

RE: This is all screwed up...
By Chernobyl68 on 8/7/2007 2:59:09 PM , Rating: 3
Drinking age is a state law - the fed encourages states to adopt a higher drinking age by using highway funds a carrot.

RE: This is all screwed up...
By rcc on 8/7/2007 5:22:23 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry, showing my age again. When I was young enough for it to matter to me, states varied. : )

RE: This is all screwed up...
By Spivonious on 8/7/2007 12:59:25 PM , Rating: 2
in some states? The drinking age is a federal law, not state.

Personally I think we should take a tip from Germany and set the drinking age at 16, since that's when everyone starts drinking here anyway. If it wasn't taboo then people wouldn't go crazy with it.

Then just make the DUI penalties super-stiff, like first offense: 1 year suspension and $1000 fine, all next offenses permanent suspension and $10000 fine. I think people would stop drinking and driving real fast.

RE: This is all screwed up...
By velma on 8/7/2007 6:52:46 PM , Rating: 2
The drinking age actually set by the states. The federal government blackmailed the states into raising the drinking age to 21 by threatening to withhold highway funding to any state that refused to do so.

Violent games
By andrinoaa on 8/7/2007 6:25:16 PM , Rating: 2
You guys just don't get it. Violence has been "NORMALISED"
When you understand this concept and become a parent maybe, just maybe, you can stop long enough to smell the roses.
I think that the people who design these games are just as sick as asbestos , coal, and tobacco producers.
If you need a fix of the latest violent game, YOU have a problem. To say its up to the parents to control is just a simplistic fob-off. In this era of mass communications and media bombardment, no parent stands a chance, unless you live in the Antarctic!

RE: Violent games
By noirsoft on 8/7/2007 9:00:13 PM , Rating: 3
To say its up to the parents to control is just a simplistic fob-off

No, _YOU_ don't get it. It is absolutely, Unequivocally, 100%, the parents' responsibility to monitor what their children read/watch/play, and in no way shape or form the government's job to do so. To say anything else is to be a BAD PARENT. If you have kids, and you have this attitude, I will make it clear:


Now, why don't you go do your job as a parent instead of spewing nonsense all over the internet?

RE: Violent games
By andrinoaa on 8/8/2007 5:19:41 PM , Rating: 2
sorryyyyyy. I am a bad parent? how did you manage to twist this one around? You obviously see it as black and white.
Well, simple simon, I think there is more to it than meets the eye. I guess I touched a raw nerve. I say my "quote' still stands. Just ask anyone who studies human behaviour.

RE: Violent games
By andrinoaa on 8/9/2007 4:01:54 AM , Rating: 2
If I have a child at school, that child is directly under my control for about 8hrs per day ( 7.00-9.00am, 4.00-10.00pm)School has the child for 7hrs ( 9.00-4.00) I have direct control for around 50% of the time. Tell me, how , by definition, am I going to have 100% control? Now son, I am not spewing nonesense all over the internet, I am giving a perents perspective. If you cannot handle the truth, try not to be abusive. Argue your case . I am willing to hear your point of view. So far you haven't been able to pierce my point of view. You have made some big errors though. You cannot make a premise and them base an arguement around the premise without evidence. Your "this is, therefore" is not a rational arguement. My job as a parent includes educating them AND protecting them from exploitation.
You also haven't refuted my claim that software writers who produce this pulp are like tobacco or asbestos producers, but attacked me instead. Stick to the arguement, you look silly using silly arguements. I have just as much right to argue that this is an abuse of freedom as much as you think its a rights issue

Another great picture...
By elpresidente2075 on 8/7/2007 10:14:55 AM , Rating: 2
You guys always have the best pictures for the start of these articles.

On point, I am also surprised that it was struck down by the court. There must be something in the wording that makes it a bad law. Otherwise, its just another one of those judges trying to legislate from the bench. Either way, I don't live there AND I'm in the 18-24 demographic, so it doesn't bother me much.

Lets just hope the kids are going to be more mentally stable from the restriction of the violence they consume.

RE: Another great picture...
By noirsoft on 8/7/2007 12:28:32 PM , Rating: 2
You cannot ban the sale of movies, books, and CDs to minors as they are considered protected by the first amendment of the US constitution, which is more important than any state's law. People have been trying to pass laws about video games sinced they have not yet been deemed to be similarly protected. This judge simply ruled that games should have the same protection as other forms of media. It's not a matter of anyone being in the pocket of any industry, not legislating from the bench (judges have the power to strike down unconstitutional laws -- that is part of their job) and certainly has nothing to do with abortion.

The law is unconstitutional, and should never have been passed. Lawmakers are reacting to ignorant parents who want the government to "do something" about the "problem" of teenage violence (despite the simple fact that it has been declining for decades) -- and yet the parents don't want to be seen as the bad guys by actually, you know, being parents and doing their job to restrict what their own kids see and play.

RE: Another great picture...
By Grast on 8/7/2007 1:21:17 PM , Rating: 2
here here

By pekingu on 8/7/2007 12:45:12 PM , Rating: 2
I have grown up watching movies like conan, terminator, predator, and danko, dozen times. I have spent hours playing doom saga, heretic, exen, wolfstein. And i consider myself a pacifist. Now here comes conan, who has been acting in the most violent movies produced by hollywood, who is a member of the republican party, and he want to protect minors from violence.

u must b kidding me t800.

By SirLucius on 8/7/2007 12:51:28 PM , Rating: 2
So just because an actor does violent movies they must think it's okay for children to see them? That's silly. For example, I know Will Smith said that he didn't think children should go see Bad Boys II because of the themes of the movie. He thought the R-rating was appropriate.

I'm sure many kids have seen Arnold's movies, and I'm sure some of his movies would only get a PG-13 rating by todays standards, but that doesn't mean that he thinks children should be exposed to the violence in his movies.

By masher2 on 8/8/2007 11:30:46 AM , Rating: 2
It's also illuminating to note that, when Schwarzenegger's children began growing up and watching his movies, he began refusing certain roles, and adapting others to what he considered ethical standards. It's no accident he didn't kill anyone in Terminator 2, and began accepting roles in lighthearted comedies like Twins and Kindergarten Cop.

typical democrats
By rika13 on 8/7/2007 6:18:17 PM , Rating: 2
according to Machiavelli's "The Prince", one removes arms from the people because one does not trust them

apply to today, gun control is removing arms from the people (officially for crime prevention, but criminals still get guns); and the removal of violent movies and games is meant to have a similar effect, to make the people unwilling to arm themselves

as for gamestop firing for selling games to minors, this policy is just plain bad business and does nothing to prevent violent games from getting to kids:

1: such a policy can raise unemployment costs or distract personnel; either the company pays unemployment costs or paid personnel must go to court to defend the company, either way, the company loses; this is compounded by the fact that multiple employees are fired, in tight labor markets (like bloomington/normal in illinois) one does not have as free of choice of employees as one may wish and since much of the lower waged workforce has little desire to work for any particular employer since minimum wage employment is easily obtained (the employer thinks of the employee as disposable, the employee thinks of the employer as disposable)

2. unlike the RIAA's "lost sales", such a policy causes REAL lost sales; many (if not all) gamestop stores are near competitors and refusal to sell at one would simply have the person go next door to a store that does not have such a foolish policy

3. the time-honored tradition of the straw purchase, get your old brother or your friend's older brother to buy it for you

now i understand the need for some monitoring, the local team's coach (football i think, wasnt my school) worked at EB to see what games kids are buying

i think that parents have a right to know about games, but it's foolish for a business to fire employees for selling products the customer asks for when such products are NOT illegal and do not state they are for adults only (the ESRB has a specific rating of "AO" for adults only games)

needless to say, the EB of old is dead, no longer do they care about the customer or employee, but about corporate image

typical of american society, its ok to perform mass genocide, but God forbade us from showing an animated naked woman even though most 16 year olds have had sex with naked women (thankfully i got my copy of BMX XXX before it became gamestop)

RE: typical democrats
By nekobawt on 8/8/2007 12:35:19 PM , Rating: 2
Splitting hairs here, but the government doesn't trust the people. That's why the federal government is a republic, not a democracy. Mob rule is hazardous for your health.

As for using the threat of unemployment for an employee and the management on-hand at the time of a sale, it may be a pain in the ass (and a little draconian), but it's certainly effective, isn't it?

It is about the science...
By JS on 8/7/2007 12:39:40 PM , Rating: 2
As the judge says, the whole thing is about there being no scientific evidence about video games causing more violent behaviour than films, tv and other forms of media. Therefore it does not make sense to have special regulations in place.

And there has been a lot of studies, but as in most research into human behaviour it is extremely difficult to discern what causes what.

Do kids become more violent because of violent video games? Or do they play violent video games because they have violent tendencies to begin with? Can the violent video games work as a vent for kids who really have problems with violent behavior?

So far most studies are inconclusive or point to negligible differences compared to other factors (parenting, schooling, drug abuse, friends etc).

The whole hype is because most of the current generation of teenage parents are not that familiar with games, and the usual fear of the unknown causes moral hysteria. It was the same with comic books and rock music once. This will all die out in time and games will be treated like other media.

By justinburton on 8/7/2007 12:55:12 PM , Rating: 2
I hope they don't throw out Arnold's opinion on the fact he has stared in many of his own "violent" Terminator games. Terminator 1 and 2 were on just about every console of their times. Terinator 3 was on PS2 and Xbox.

banning violent video games
By HardwareD00d on 8/7/2007 1:53:25 PM , Rating: 2
"I am de party pooper"

By Samus on 8/7/2007 7:39:14 PM , Rating: 2
that the man responsible for some of the most violent movies of the 80's and 90's doesn't like violent videogames.

By Jcruiser89 on 8/9/2007 1:28:14 PM , Rating: 2
I remember when I was working at Toy's R Us a customer returned Zelda Wind Waker, because she said it encouraged Idol Worshiping.......... I still crack up every time....... The responsibility lies in the parents hands like its always been.

By invidious on 8/7/2007 10:26:36 AM , Rating: 1
didnt pass because the gaming industry didn't want it to pass. they stand to lose money from this bill so they do their best to stop it. as for the bill itself, it has no concise predictions or studies to confirm that it would actually reduce teen violence.

so basically gaming industry lobbiest's opinions is more important than arnold's opinion.

By GlassHouse69 on 8/7/2007 10:46:36 AM , Rating: 1
Most 13 year olds are beating off to hardcore porn.

lots of them are having drinks.

Most of them have gotten into a fight or two.

Almost all of them envision bringing weapons into school and anhilating all the shitheads they know. They dont though normally, and just do things like throw ketchup packets at people, trash lockers, etc.

teenage angst FTW!

By Coca Cola on 8/7/2007 10:42:26 PM , Rating: 1
Leland!! You son of a bitch...what's the matter? Congress got you pushing to many pencils.


I signed this important measure to ensure that parents are involved in determining which video games are appropriate for their children

it would have been nice if he added

You kids are soft, you lack discipline, well I got news for you, you are mine now! You belong to me...there is no bathroom!

"Mac OS X is like living in a farmhouse in the country with no locks, and Windows is living in a house with bars on the windows in the bad part of town." -- Charlie Miller
Related Articles

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki