This is a case that will be going to the Supreme Court and basically, Arnold Schwarzenegger will be suing Entertainment Merchants Association because allow underage children play violent video games where you can have sex, use sex toys, and murder people. He believes that children under the age of 18 should not be allowed to play games that are rated M for Mature.
Personally, I think he will win. I don't think the Supreme Court would think it'd be fine to let children do that. I wish they wouldn't vote in favour of it, but I think it'll be at least 7-2.
The EMA already enforces their system. Most stores won't sell a game that is rated M to anyone under 18 (every time I buy one, they ask for my ID to check that I am over 18). Schwartzenegger may have the argument that the games are affecting children, but the EMA has the argument that none of the studies adequately show that. The EMA also has the argument that the law is too vague. Game developers will not know where they are breaking it and where they are not. There's also the whole argument about it being unconstitutional.
I listened to the recent hearing in the Supreme Court, and both sides had their flaws, but I think EMA has it on this one. With video games, it will be too hard to put into words what is acceptable and what is not. There are several games that have violence that convey a message of it being for the greater good. The law would easily be able to ban games based on violence period.
The justices also brought up the issue of what would constitute as appropriate for people under 18. Did it mean for 5 year olds? 1o year olds? Maybe 16 year olds? They said there was too great a difference in maturity levels between those ages for it to function well.
I recently did a research project on the psychological effects of video games on the human mind, and none of the studies I found for or against violent video games causing violent thoughts or actions were valid. The most accurate said there were no serious effects except more negative thoughts while playing the game. There were not significant results to say it went either way. Many of the studies only looked at data about the background of a person, whether they had played violent video games and whether they had committed a violent act.
The most accurate study would be to take 1000 kids and give them violent video games of varying intensities (from killing with a moral (he had to die because he was a terrorist) to killing without a moral, like in Postal), and seeing what happens after a few years of playing. The only problem is that this could never happen unless there were 1000 parents willing to offer up their kids, and even then there would be rights arguments.
I think the EMA is going to win this one. Even if both arguments are invalid, Schwartzenegger's has more holes.
There are rules and enforcements for purchasing games beyond a certain age. Once the game is purchased, how can a videogame company be held responsible for who plays it? While we're at it, lets punish movie studios when a child sees an R rated movie, or take out a producer when a kids listens to his Dad's explicit album.
I say this is unnecessary. As long as it is enforced that you must be at least 18 or your countries system or whatever dedicated age to BUY mature games then that is enough. If a guardian buys an 18+ game for their 10 year old they should be intelligent enough to understand what the rating system is.
I would argue that many younger kids are mature enough to handle this but I know that that is not true. It seems I am just fortunate enough to have acquainted some really mature youngsters.
Thanks, Kevin4762. As an avid gamer, I am closely following this case. The outcome could change the world of gaming as we know it. I do have a few things to add to my previous post.
The Supreme Court Justices shot down the classification of "deviant violence," in a way. I interpret that as meaning that until a less vague definition is made, the law can't easily stand. They also looked at it from a developer's point of view, which I thought was very cool.
They pigeonholed the EMA just as hard, but I think their attorney made fewer mistakes before the court than Schwartzenegger's attorney.
While I do agree with Schwartzenegger in part of his argument, I look at all the other ways kids can access the games without going to a retail store and purchasing them. There is an online community called Steam, through which you can purchase games for your computer, and digitally download them for use with Steam. While they do try to regulate age, anyone can lie about their age. Their argument about pornography is also made invalid by the internet. I have a 14-year-old friend who views pornography online, and his mom lets him. Schwartzenegger might as well try to ban children from using the internet if he wants to protect them.
Schwartzenegger's heart is in the right place, but he's trying to challenge something that can't be challenged. Let me just say, though, that I support the system currently in effect, and not allowing kids to purchase violent games wouldn't affect the bottom lines of developers very much. Most of their games are purchased by adults. The reason they [the EMA] are fighting is that the law is so vague that developers would be afraid to make anything violent, in fear that they might violate the law and lose thousands of dollars. In the same way, retailers would be afraid to sell the video games.
Here's the link to the transcript. Listen to Breyer just tear apart and crush both cases for them for one hour. Just skim around if you don't want to listen for an hour. My teacher made us go online and sum up the arguments for both sides today.
That's what I listened to before posting both of my posts. The Justices shredded both arguments apart, but that's what they do. After the dust settled in that one hour, I think the EMA's was stronger than Schwartzenegger's. Schwartzenegger's attorney also made a big mistake by trying to argue something that they hadn't submitted prior to the hearing (those of you who listen to/read the transcript will know what I'm talking about). They were also still too vague in their arguments, while the EMA's attorney was more clear and seemed to know what he was talking about as opposed to Schwartzenegger's.
Even if he wins, it won't work. It's like with alcohol. Under-age people take it, and the law can't really stop them. So, somebody that is 18+ can always buy the games for the kids. And i think 18+ is too much. Lots of people 16+ play violent games, actually most of the people 15-16+ play violent games. Put a law on 18+ = decrees of a certain sector of the economy.
Even if he wins, it won't work. It's like with alcohol. Under-age people take it, and the law can't really stop them. So, somebody that is 18+ can always buy the games for the kids. And i think 18+ is too much. Lots of people 16+ play violent games, actually most of the people 15-16+ play violent games. Put a law on 18+ = decrees of a certain sector of the economy.
Yeah, Linktopast30, is right. They talked about if a thirteen year old boy is more likely to buy a dirty magazine than a video game that costs $50-$60 dollars. Most children don't even have that amount of money. I never thought about it that.
I think there's no way the EMA could lose this case. The law is too vague and too difficult to enforce, but there's also just the idea of censorship and overregulation. Books aren't regulated due to violence. Movies aren't even regulated due to violence. If California wins this, it opens the door to all types of media, and we might just turn into an Orwellian police state.
They talked about if a thirteen year old boy is more likely to buy a dirty magazine than a video game that costs $50-$60 dollars. Most children don't even have that amount of money. I never thought about it that.
I was never against teens buying dirty magazines...And you can't and i can't really say that a 13 year old boy would really want to buy a magazine more then a game. And yes, a lot of kids have lots of money.
