Debate: New Law In California

**Kyle L** · #1 10-15-2005, 02:11 AM

A new bill passed and has now become a law in California. We recently had a debate in our government class about the new law, here's what it is and what it does:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Law Prevents sale and rental of ultra-violent video games to persons under 18 years old. You are now required to show ID when purchasing ultra-violent video games, unless your parents buy them for you if they feel you are mature enough to play them. This law is for California now (I think 2 other states have them)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
My Opinion: I was debating on the side for it, I feel that this is actually a great law that was passed. Although I am 18 and has no effect on me, the fact that if affects the largest of affected population of ultra-violent video games is good.

Why do I think its good? Video games produce a image. Ever laugh when playing Grand Theft Auto 3? Of course, running over homeless people, getting prostitutes in your car, and killing cops is fun! Or at least, the game makes it fun and makes you laugh. Am I taking it a little too seriously? Proabobly, but the overall image that games produce today is "cool" and "fun". Now I understand that what I do in video games (The violent ones) is completley un-acceptable in any way....but I am 18, the legal age to buy ultra-violent video games.

I'm opening this forum up to debate about this topic, read it carefully, its now a law, its not "going to be" or "In the process" it IS a law. Please voice what you think.

Freedom211 · #2 10-15-2005, 03:07 AM

I agree with you, i think video games have an effect on kids, just not as much as media likes to say. I think its a good idea. I know when i have kids ill let them play, but when you have children that are 10-14 playing these games even younger, i know of many. Its going a little far. No child should be able to do that.

Chris L · #3 10-15-2005, 05:54 AM

I don't understand? When I was underage (younger than 16, even), I tried renting Mortal Kombat games at Blockbuster and wasn't allowed to unless my parents gave their consent. Kind of old news? It's not a new concept - the whole making sure younger kids aren't exposed to violent stuff without their paren'ts approval. But I SUPPOSE, this new law would make it an industry standard for video rental stores...so that EVERYONE would have to abide by that protocol, regardless of company policy...hmmmmmmmm

DemonHunter4337 · #4 10-15-2005, 08:03 AM

Yeah although it was a tad bit disturbing to see a 12 year old purchasing Grand Theft Auto.

medieval · #5 10-15-2005, 08:47 AM

I agree with you.
Here where I live, you have to be 17 (18 maybe) to buy any games rated M for Mature. I really think its great since like Demon said, it is disturbing to see a 12 year old buy GTA3

Tanks4me05 · #6 10-15-2005, 09:15 AM

I think it is a great idea, but depending on what game it is. If it is something like Halo, with highly unrealistic purple mist and blood stains, I think you don't need an ID. But for something like Grand Theft Auto, then by all means, that thing should be AO. (I'm 12, and I have never played either any Halo game or any Grand Theft Auto game, given my mom won't let me play M games. I'm only basing this on screenshots, what I 've heard about them, etc.)

coasterlove · #7 10-15-2005, 09:36 AM

I agree with the law for the most part. The only problem I have with it is that I heard that the stores have to be self policing in that they determine what is and isn't too violent. At least that's what I heard. They said it wasn't automatically M or AO rated games. That would be really the only problem I had with it, that it wasn't clear enough. This information may have been slightly inncorrect though.

Other than that, I agree with it. I don't think young kids should be able to buy M rated games. I also think the law can help reatailers and the actual workers who have argue with kids or even their parents why they wouldn't sell the game to them. At least now they have the law on their side to protect them. Although some people are so ignorant, they'll still argue about it. I know it happens to me all the time with the sale of alcohol.

[I]No, if you don't have ID, I can't sell you the alcohol. It doesn't matter if you're 22, how do I know you are and not really 20?[/I]

Like people look that different between 22 and 20. :rolleyes:

Coaster Freak · #8 10-15-2005, 10:45 AM

Here is a way to make it stick in the store.....when I go to walmart and buy a dvd with the 'R' rating (in canada the 'R' is the same as the US NC-17) a prompt comes up on the computer asking for the cashier to check for ID.....it is then up to the cashier to determine whether or not they have to check. In this case, you take away the decision as to whether or not ID is even an issue. And yes I realize that they still have to make the decision to check.......but that also goes with alcohol.

In my opinion its a good law....I think what the stores have to be more proactive about is telling parents what exactly it is that they buying for there kids.....but i'm almost sure that this wouldn't happen because it would discourage sales. Don't you guys remember about the grandmother who is suing Rockstar over the HOt Coffee issue becasue she bought the game for her 12 year old grand son????

CoasterJunkie · #9 10-15-2005, 10:58 AM

I think that this law has good intentions, but is weak in it's execution. The law says, "ultra-violent," but does not specifically define ultra-violent, leaving it up to the retailers to decide, and if they decide wrong, then they're fined.

That's my only problem with this. If they come out and define ultra-violent in clear terms, then that's great. However, as it reads now, retailers have to guess what the state's definition of ultra-violent is. If the retailers are wrong, then they're fined; if they're not, then they lose more business than they have to.

As long as this is where government restrictions on video games stops, then I'm fine. However, if this goes any further (i.e. cannot sell ultra-violent video games, period), then I will be upset.

On a side note, according to the US Department of Justice, violent crimes committed by anyone 12 or older is at it's lowest levels in 30 years (1973 to 2003). Furthermore, since 1993, the number of these crimes have dropped from 50 crimes committed per 1,000 people, to 20 crimes committed per 1,000 people. If we look specifically at the 14-17 year-old age group, crimes committed by them are at the lowest levels EVER recorded, and that's from the US Department of Justice.

And to let you know, the first Playstation was introduced in 1994, the first GTA game in 1998, PS2 in 1999, and GTA3 in 2000. All statistics from [url]http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs[/url].

**Andrew Polcyn** · #10 10-15-2005, 12:51 PM

I would think that ultra-violent is anything rated M or AO.

CoasterJunkie · #11 10-15-2005, 01:42 PM

I would think ultra-violent would have an ESRB rating of M or AO. However, what about a game like Call of Duty? It's rated T, is that considered ultra-violent? To some people yes, to others no. That's the problem with the law as it reads now, the retailers don't know. They could be punished for breaking a law that has no set definition, so the retailers don't know when they break it.

**Kyle L** · #12 10-15-2005, 03:06 PM

[QUOTE=Andrew Polcyn]I would think that ultra-violent is anything rated M or AO.[/QUOTE]

Thats another thing that I am concerned with is the rating system. It does a great job with giving a game a "label" as to what sort of catagory it fits under, but fails to describe the full realm of the game. "Blood, Violence, Swearing" is broad and they need to fully lay out they players inter-activity with the violent part of the video games. Its quite obvious that a military shooter will have blood, how engrossed you get into the violence needs to be covered.

Kinda like Saving Private Ryan. Its rated R, but so is the Matrix. I didn't find the Matrix too violent (There was blood and weapons) but Saving Private Ryan is definition blood....they were on a beach? Coulda sworn it was a desert in Utah with red sand......(Sarcasm)

Aaron · #13 10-15-2005, 04:17 PM

I whole-heartedly approve of this. Games like GTA shouldn't be banned, but this kind of regulation is a great idea. They do need to clarify exactly what games fall under the law, though, that's the only shortcoming. If parents feel their kids are mature enough to handle such themes then they can buy the game for their kids, but I don't think it's a good idea for a 13-year-old to be able to buy GTA without their parent's knowledge. If you can't buy tickets to an R-rated movie until you're 17, why should you be able to buy a M-rated game when you're 13?

Coastr Crazy 72 · #14 10-15-2005, 05:30 PM

I thought this was the way it always was? Maybe just around here? I'm not exactly sure. I never disagreed with it but I don't necessarily think it has a huge impact on kids. I think more then anything it is the media that has such an impact on kids but the games like GTA are always the ones to take the blame for youth violence and such actions. Thats just my two cents.

CoasterJunkie · #15 10-15-2005, 05:44 PM

Violent games ALONE have very little to do with violent crimes (see the US DOJ data above). It's when parents cannot be bothered to be parents and rely on the PS2 to babysit, THAT'S when video games MIGHT start to cause problems (there has been no evidence that shows anything but the weakest correlation linking video games and violent crimes).

I've never met any parents that called themselves bad parents, so whenever their kids do something wrong they blame something else, in this case it's video games. This law is more to protect kids by forcing the parents to play a more active role in their kids' lives, not to punish video game makers or retailers.