Parents Television Council Applauds California's Supreme Court Appeal of Violent Video Game Law
Parents Television Council Applauds California's Supreme Court Appeal of Violent Video Game Law
May 21, 2009
Media watchdog group the Parents Television Council has applauded Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's decision to petition the U.S. Supreme Court to review a federal court decision striking down California's 2005 violent video game law as unconstitutional.
While video game industry lobbyists and video game consumer group the Entertainment Consumers Association criticized Schwarzenegger's decision, PTC President Tim Winter (left) praised the California appeal in a press release:
There should be no question that unaccompanied minors should be kept from purchasing adult video games that research has shown can be harmful to them, just like there are reasonable restrictions on other products that can cause them harm. This California law was designed to enforce the video game industry’s own voluntary retail guidelines... Our own research found that video game retailers sell M-rated video games to minors 36% of the time. Clearly, this law is needed...
The [video game] industry doesn’t follow its own rules, and they don’t want a consequence for violating them. Video game retailers, developers and publishers actually profit when their age restriction policy is ignored. This creates an inherent and unworkable conflict of interest.
We hope that the U.S. Supreme Court will hear the case and rule in favor of the families and children that this California law was intended to protect.
Winter is referring to the PTC's 2008 secret shopper survey, which found that underage buyers were successful at purchasing M-rated games 36% of the time. A survey released by the Federal Trade Commission earlier in 2008 found only a 20% success rate for underage buyers.
FULL DISCLOSURE DEPT: The ECA is the parent company of GamePolitics.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGINGamePolitics ShoutBox
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:16pm
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Andrew Eisen: Shouldn't be. Spirit of anti-discrimination laws would seem to include sexual orientation (and eye color). Plus there's always equal protection and such. Never know until you try.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:10pm
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Andrew Eisen: Should have sued (unless that wasn't an option given her financial situation or something). Might have won.
Posted 02/09/10 at 01:00pm
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Valdearg: Story about a Male to Female TG who was expressly told she wouldn't be given a job because she was TG. Its not the main point of the story, but explicit, perfectly legal discrimination like this exists.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:53pm
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Valdearg: Lol, I don't know. It may very well be legal to do so. Though that might able to fall under the "race" restriction, depending on how that point is argued.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Valdearg: I don't think they do have any legal recourse. I'll have to dig around, but I seriously believe that if the law doesn't specifically mention Sexual Orientation or Gender Identity, they can still be discriminated against in those 29 states.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:51pm
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Andrew Eisen: Eye color isn't covered either but I doubt it would be considered legal to refuse to hire people with green eyes.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:48pm
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Andrew Eisen: My explanation is longer than the Shoutbox will allow. Suffice to say that while those who are discriminated against do have legal recourse, anti-discrimination law should specifically cite sexual orientation so that there’s no question about it.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:42pm
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Valdearg: "There is no federal law that consistently protects LGBT individuals from employment discrimination; it remains legal in 29 states, and in 38 states to do so based on gender identity or expression." From the Human Rights Campaign.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:40pm
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Valdearg: @AE: Why don't you think I'm correct? I know Wiki could be flawed, but as far as it says, its up to date as of June 2009.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:39pm
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Andrew Eisen: I don't think you're right but I really don't know and don't have the time to find out. However things actually are, it's very clear how they actually should be.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:34pm
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Valdearg: "just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal." I would disagree. If there's no laws against it, it makes it perfectly legal. It's definitely not right, but perfectly legal to do.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Valdearg: Meaning in 29 states, private sector discrimination against gays is perfectly legal.. Sickening.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:33pm
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Valdearg: 19 states have no protections, and another 10 only have protections for public sector jobs.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:32pm
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Andrew Eisen: Well, most businesses have equal rights policies in place and just because there's no specific state level protection for it, doesn't make discrimination right or legal. Still, no argument against adding such protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Valdearg: More information. Apparently, it's worse than I actually thought.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:28pm
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Valdearg: Check the link. Apparently, its more like 20 states that have no protections.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:26pm
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Andrew Eisen: In the US? Not that I'm aware of. Sad if true.
Posted 02/09/10 at 12:25pm
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Valdearg: @AE: Actually, I think, at least for now, businesses can still discriminate against gays in a few states.. Something like 5 or 8. Its part of why Gay Rights Advocates are in support of the Employee Nondiscrimination Act, or ENDA.
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
"The [video game] industry doesn’t follow its own rules"
They do follow there own rules, stop lying.
http://www.magicinkgaming.com/
Liars apparently have a hard time not lying it seems.
The only reason there is any sucess rate is because they did their research at stores with crooked employees.
Every fucking store I go to always:
1. Checks for I.D.
2. Requires parent accompanying minors when selling.
3. Has a bunch of signs all over the fucking store with info about the ESRB.
I say we introduce legislation that imprisons anyone attempting to restrict/eliminate anyone's First Amendmant Rights, then we can jail these fascist assholes and get it over with.
--------------------
Making the world a better place... one Headshot at a time.
So...Uh...You want to go to jail then? By locking them up for exercising their First Amendment rights, you are violating their first amendment rights and so you would need to go to jail.
These people have every right to voice their opinion that games are harmful and should be restricted. They have every right to petition the government to create and enforce those restrictions.
This is why we have check and balances in the government. So that if someone tries to do something that violates the constitution, it can be fought and removed.
E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma
I have a headache...
(Nobody got the hypocrytical joke...)
--------------------
Making the world a better place... one Headshot at a time...
yeah but at the same time as responsible adults, shouldn't they know California is 21 billion in the red and thus as responsible adults tell him to get us out of debt then try again? I mean seems only responsible that you get your priorities in order but I guess protecting kids from big bad video games that I've watched employees look at a kid and go "....No...." when they said they wanted to buy is just waaay more important then the kids' education, and physical safety.
You have spoken... the REAL contradiction that has been made about Freedom of Speech and the Right to petition the government.
Person A has the Right to voice their own opinions and follow those beliefs themselves.
Person B has the Right to voice their own opinions and follow those beliefs themselves.
Person says they have the Right to petition the government and demand that THEIR beliefs be legislated and Person B be required, by law, to follow Person A's beliefs, even if Person B doesn't agree with those beliefs.
Moreover, the belief being petitioned for is consentual and, originally, was was at the individual discretion of each individual (each individual could volutarily choose, or not choose, to do or not do, participate or not participate, etc). Example: I choose to read a book someone else doesn't like. My reading of this book does not even take place in the presence of someone else, let alone out loud in the presence of someone else.
So by what ACTUAL Right does Person A have to petition the government to prevent or force Person B from doing or not doing, participating or not participating, believing or not believing in what Person A demands through the petition?
Such petition, in fact, by logical, intelligent, NEUTRAL law, would actually violate the Rights of Person B.
In shorter terms: Person A's Rights end where Person B's Rights begin, and vice versa.
Of course, the US legal system, contrary to what is actually written in the US Constitution (let alone any other government on this planet) does not truly abide by a NEUTRAL legal system.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
This explains why my sister's community can fine her for having porn in her house.....I think....
---
I once had a dream about God. In it, he was looking down upon the planet and the havoc we recked and he said unto us, "Damn Kids get off my lawn!"
Figures that the crazy would applaud this.
No, Tim "Retarded Assclown" Winter, when those sales only represent less than 1% of all video game sales, this piece of trash law is clearly not needed. Especially when the state that's filing the appeal is $21 billion in the red and is laying off teachers, police officers, and firefighters because they can't afford to pay them.
Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.
Even if you accept his premise that video games are harmful to minors, there still remains the fact that nobody has a First Amendment right to sell alcohol and cigarettes. It is a lot more difficult to legally suppress speech, as it should be. This is a fundamental difference with far-reaching ramifications, and you cannot simply handwave it away by repeatedly asserting that the games are harmful.
And, if it means that much to them, then instead of repeatedly asserting that the games are harmful but without a shred of evidence in support of the assertion, they would get about the business of digging up some hard science which actually proves that the games are harmful. And quit asking the Supreme Court dumb-ass questions with obvious answers like: "Do we really have to prove that the games are harmful?"
They say that is law is clearly needed because 36% of minors could get a rated M game. They make it sound like the movie industry is doing a much better job.
Videogames are not harmfull. Parents Television Council IS harmful to the healthy minds of adults who are doing the right thing and making their own decision.
If you think that Violent Videogames are bad, go to Japan and your heads will explode like the Hiroshima Bomb.
And if you don't like the surpreme court's decision that the bill is and ALWAYS was unconsitutional. Then you should ask yourselves perhaps you should live in a country like Pakistan and see how society is Violent without any Violent Videogames.
Eh, we don't need them to start calling for the US to "Finish the job"
And they'll be the first to jump down Arnie's throat the second the appeal is denied.
Unlikely they'll jump down his throat. At that point he'll have done everything within his power to fight for this law.
-Gray17
Yeah, but in their eyes he won't have done enough.
WHY... WHY DO THEY CONTINUE TO WASTE MY MONEY ON USELESS LEGISLATION?!?!?!
--------------------
Making the world a better place... one Headshot at a time...
Can't say I'm surprised, for a group who's first name is 'Parents', they sure are adverse to actually doing any parenting...
Heh, I"m willing to bet most of them hire nannies to do the work for them.
I'm willing to bet they leave their kids in a small white room all day with no windows.
--------------------
Making the world a better place... one Headshot at a time...
I don't understand why politicians want such a bill to protect the children when they don't do anything about cyber bullying. Cyber bullying is something which truly needs to be dealt with because it harms children in the present but can also have a serious impact on their future. And this not only because of the "torment" but also because nowadays universities and businesses do an Internet background check on applications. When they find a bad site about you, even when someone else made it, you are out of luck. And yet, violent video games are a problem? Come on. Not to mention that the governator is a huge hypocrite for trying to appeal to protec the children from violent images, considering him having been in countless violent movies seen by children.
So I guess the PTC doesn't care about the economy either.
Nope, so long as they don't have to do their job as, you know, parents.
Aye, if I am to be carded for everything I buy, I just might as well order it online at Amazon and what not, where I am not carded. Brick and Mortar stores are already having a hard time competing with online stores. I'm very much surprised that retail associations aren't screaming in uproar for goverment to leave them alone.
Maybe I should start doing what the PTC and others like them do and truly start petitioning the government to "Protect the Children!" from religious "mental molestation" of children and the harmful effects which have been proven time and time again. Hey, I can even bring up the recent reports about religious advocated abuses (verbal, mental, physical, and sexual) advocated, covered up, and continued to occur in Ireland and backed by the Vatican! "Protect the Children!"
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
Sadly that would never fly and your mail woudl get so full of death threats you'd be getting them by the bags full >.<
Yay double standards X3
Works for me. Remember all the hoopla in various cases, not just video game legislation, where people are stalked, called, emailed, faxed, and so on, death threats and other threats of harm?
Based on some politicians, individuals, and organizations, even ONE such act is supposed to be further evidence in their favor.
So, death threats, and other such acts, would further prove my point and would be additional evidence of the clear and present danger that religion poses to society and the mental and physical well-being of children.
Ever see the original Miracle on 34th Street?
Judge: "Put them here on my desk."
Attorney: "But your honor..."
Judge: "Put them here."
:: Postal delivery employees come in with bags and bags of mail for Santa Claus and dumps them, hundreds of letters on the Judge's desk. ::
They'll be shooting themselves in the foot... with a bazooka!
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
Nightwng2000 has also updated his MySpace page: http://www.myspace.com/nightwing2000 Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl
True, it'd be along the lines of "If you're so sure you're right, then why do you feel so threatened by a different view?"
I always found it interesting that when reading arguments that all government poliices, etc should be based off christian concepts, etc and that christianity needs the governemnt to protect it. Is a faith that small/weak, that if the goverment was truly secular, that christianity would fade away? I find it interesting that christians claim they are being persecuted by the small amount of non-christians in the USA, yet I don't see anyone being fed to lions, crucified, tortured etc like what happened in the distant past? My favorite lately is those claiming if christianity becomes weak in the US, that we will become an Islamic country with Sharia law. I'm sorry, but if Americans rejected christianity, I think we will reject Islam as well.
<Irony>
But nightwing the issue of whether or not religion is harmful to kids may not be as conclusive and clear cut as you think it is. To you it may be common sense but we're going to need more than just that to justify squahing first amendment rights to religion. I mean restricting that right shouldn't be taken lightly and so we'd need objective proof.
Also look at all the people who practice religion and don't have messed up kids, what about them, or are we going to base all our laws on what a small criminal, psychotic element might be capable of.
</Irony>
----------------------------------------------------
Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it's over they have the same positions they started in.
The PTC can shut the fuck up until it's THEIR money that's being used up to fund these goddamn ridiculous, unconstitutional laws. THEY aren't worried that CA is more than $21 billion in the hole.
" that research has shown can be harmful to them,"
Really? Are they still pushing this bs? I love how the research is never revealed or referenced properly so that people can go and look up the studies and see how flawed they are. Nope, just tag the phrase "research has shown" along to whatever your particular opinion or belief is and it seems you automatically imbue it with some credibility.
A more accurate statement would be "Researchers have attempted to show these games can be harmful but have never achieved this goal"
I 'll say this simply, the PTC can go fuck itself!
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
"The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" - Herodotus
This is the same assclown group that got thier asses sued by the WWF a couple years back, why the video game industry doesn't do the same is just beyond me. This group also was responsible for the indecency scare on broadcast TV a few years back because of "Nipplegate". This is also the same group that has repeatedly campaigned to get shows taken off by threatening boycotts against thier sponsors even when the shows air at 10pm, have warnings, and wouldn't appeal to kids(Nip/Tuck, The Shield). And what about movie theaters? I got into R-rated movies all the time when I was 13 and 14 years old and hell most of the time I didn't even need to sneak in. And with the recent wave of sadistic slasher movies being released why is there no outrage over that?
Heh heh, sounds like he's being listening to Jack Thompson too much. He's still referring to the line "the video game industry is not following its own rules". The rules of the industry are that you need to have your game rated by the ESRB. Technically, they don't actually have to go to the ESRB, but no retailers will carry them if they don't do it. So anyway, that's the only rule the videogame industry has: Have your game rated by the ESRB, and put the little symbol and descriptor area on the game box. That's all they have to do.
Now, you stupid fuck, the RETAILERS are the ones selling to people. As far as I know there are very very few developers/publishers that sell 'factory direct'. So the videogame industry has no effect on the so-called breaking of this 'rule'. It's called the retail industry. And they are breaking their own store policy if they sell to someone outside the age rating, not some fanciful rule that the videogame industry has made.
Ask any developer or publisher, I'm sure they have never told a retailer, "Hey, make sure you sell within the age recommendation." It's a decision that is completely up the retailer. Devs have zero responsibility in this matter.
I mean, damn, this is basic commonsense knowledge. It's akin to a furniture manufacturer telling a furniture store, "Hey, don't let anybody sit on this table, it might get fingerprints on the glass top and smudges, that would totally ruin your display."
They succeded 36% of the time? so this law is needed, that means they failed 64% percent of the time.