VSDA and ESA sue Mr. Schwarzenegger

[Sascha Willems]

Maybe you already read somewhere that Arnold (now the Gouvernour of California) recently signed a bill that restricts sales of violent video games to persons above 18 years of age, and the gaming industry out there doesn't really like that. So what do they do? They sue Mr. Schwarzenegger and as some examples from the past show, thay had success which such behaviour in the past.

You know, we have that kind of censor-ship here in germany for some time now and I dunno why the game industry over there in California (maybe too much sun burned some important parts) has problems with those restrictions. There just are games that shouldn't be sold to minors (just think of recent games like F.E.A.R. or Quake IV) and there also are parents that don't care. So if parents fail and stores don't care about the age of the buyers, it's the state's duty to do something. But as said everywhere, you now can see that the gaming industry clearly is only about money, otherwise they wouldn't act that way. They may come up with things like "this is pure censorship" or "it's the parent's duty to see what their kids do", but at some point one just has to stop those industrial madmans from selling anything to anyone. If you're a bit into history, you'll quickly realize that such behaviour will someday end up in a new age of decadence.

Read up on the whole issue here.

[Traveler]

-post removed by myself-

[Crisp_N_Dry]

Well I would have to agree with the industry on this one. What justification is there for restricting sales of games or any other form of expressive media (Music, film, traditional artwork) to those older than 18, an age that is widely considered (certainly over here in the UK and even in US when it comes to VG's) to be that of an adult who can judge for themselves whether it is something they wish to purchase. There is no way on this earth that anybody should be able to dictate what another person may see when they are considered old enough to decide for themselves. If I want to see the most detailed, horrific images ever witnessed in a game then who are they to stop me. I have the right to choose and so should everybody else. If you are underage then you do not have this choice. Parents make them choices for you. Censorship is wrong. Restricted viewing should only apply to non-adults.

[Traveler]

Restricted viewing should only apply to non-adults.

But isn't that the case?

?¢_oTen days ago I signed into law legislation that requires violent video games be clearly labeled and prohibits their sale to children under 18 years old

.

[Crisp_N_Dry]

recently signed a bill that restricts sales of violent video games to persons above 18 years of age

Misinterpretted that to mean the opposite. Thought he was restricitng it to adults as well as kids.

[Traveler]

you are not alone. I made the same mistake earlier, hence my deleted post

[cairnswm]

As a parent I welcome laws like these. I only hope the enforcement of the law is put in place as well.

People opposed to these controls usually say that the parents should control the purchases of the children. However as I was once a teenage - many years ago - with rather controlling parents, I know how easy it is for a teenager to buy their own things. The number of teenagers that smaoke scares me and there are laws restricting the sale of cigarrettes to teenagers here.

Laws without enforcement are not much help...