CA ‘violent video’ law blocked
p2p news / p2pnet: “Shooting schoolgirls in the knee and then setting them afire appeals to the deviant interests of minors,” wrote US District Judge Ronald Whyte. “Furthermore, shooting schoolgirls in the kneecap is inflicting serious injury, and then setting them afire and urinating on them as they crawl about is especially cruel and depraved and constitutes torture.”
But, “that doesn’t necessarily mean California should stop children from buying ‘Postal II,’ according to the rest of the ruling, which leaned heavily on precedents set in other states,” he wrote, says the San Jose Mercury News. “There is still the question of whether there’s ‘a causal connection between access to such games and psychological or other harm to children’.”
Postal II is the sequel to IGN’s 1998 game Postal which, says the site, “postulated that the stresses of suburban life can sometimes push people over the edge and turn normal citizens into reckless maniacs. In this case, you played the part of the maniac.”
Or as Gamespy sums it up, ” it all starts out when you come home from work to find that your house has been repossessed. You, the Postal Dude, decide that everyone is out to get you … and so you logically go on a shooting spree (also known as going postal). Postal features 12 weapons, many interesting locations, and every type of person available for you to kill. It doesn’t matter if they’re unarmed or seem innocent, they are still asking for you to kill them because they are all out to get you.”
Postal 2, “opens the doors even wider and renders a living, breathing world for the player,” says IGN.
But, a law that would have banned the rental and sale of violent video games to minors in California starting January 1 has been blocked by Whyte, says the Mercury News.
Backed by CA governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, AB1179 prohibits selling or renting a violent video game to someone under 18 and defines a violent video game as one that lets a player, “virtually inflict serious injury” on humanlike figures in a way that’s “especially heinous, cruel or depraved”.
“The new law would have required game publishers to put large ‘18′ labels on especially violent games, identifying which ones couldn’t be sold or rented to minors,” the Mercury News.
However, Whyte’s order said the labelling provision, “may run afoul of free-speech rights” and “questioned lawmakers’ claim that playing violent video games causes children to think or act aggressively in real life”. But its definition of a “violent video game” wasn’t “unconstitutionally vague”.
Speaker Pro Tempore Leland Yee, a child psychologist who wrote the video game bill that was signed into law on October 7, called the ruling “simply a temporary pause,” the story states.
“He said he believes ‘common sense will prevail over corporate profiteering’.”
The state attorney general’s Office was reviewing the temporary ruling Thursday and weighing whether to appeal the decision.
Also See:
San Jose Mercury News – Law curbing sales of violent video games is blocked, December 23, 2005
violent video games – California ‘violent video’ row, October 19, 2005
December 23rd, 2005 at 4:57 pm
I still have yet to see one single legitimate study that says violent videogames make kids more violent.
December 23rd, 2005 at 5:10 pm
“Shooting schoolgirls in the knee and then setting them afire”
Just to let you know there aren’t actually any child characters in postal 2 so this statement is somewhat misleading.
I would have to agree with the previous poster in that there aren’t really any tangible studies that prove one way or the other that videos games make people violent.
Anyway, what about violent TV, movies and even music?… If you have a problem with your child playing a violent video game then don’t buy them it for them ffs :S …becuase ultimately its the parents fault for either giving thier child the money to buy the game or actually buying it for them.
It should be noted that these types of games are designed for adults and the average profile of a gamer is a 28 year old male, so do you propose that games shouldn’t be designed for this demographic of gamers?…should we all play games for 3 year olds just to be safe?
December 23rd, 2005 at 5:59 pm
These studies seem to always look at one small slice of what is going on in people’s lives. There is no study that will show that video games alone make kids (or adults who played violent games as kids…) more violent because myopic studies like that are useless. Violence, both fictional and real is everywhere in our culture. Children’s exposure to violence has grown exponentially over the past few decades. Do you believe our culture is not more violent in general than it was say 40 years ago? What are the causes of that? It’s not just video games, that’s for sure, but to say they have no effect is naive at best.
December 23rd, 2005 at 6:07 pm
“…do you propose that games shouldn’t be designed for this demographic of gamers?…should we all play games for 3 year olds just to be safe?”
The law was not intended to ban violent games, it’s purpose was only to make it more difficult for minors to buy or rent them. I don’t see what the problem is. Should we just let little kids play Postal 2? Is that your point?
December 23rd, 2005 at 6:37 pm
We don’t need studies to prove the obvious, that kids can be heavily and dangerously influenced by what they see on a screen – any screen.
It’s frightening what they pick up and how they interpret what they see.
Cheers!
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:08 pm
Whio are you to say this?
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:24 pm
Perhaps Jon’s post was written in a way that made it seem like a statment fact when in reality it is his opinion, but as far as I know we are still allowed to post our comments here.
BTW I agree with him.
December 23rd, 2005 at 7:47 pm
I’m the father of a nine-year-old daughter whom we home-school. This means _everything_ is a part of her education.
Please don’t get the impression that we’re over-protective. We’re not. But video games predicated on sheer, bloody violence and made by venal corporations with zero sense of responsibility will very definitely never be a part of our lives.
Cheers!
December 23rd, 2005 at 8:45 pm
Those that are “predisposed” to violence have more problems than a video game. For the average player, it is a game. It’s not real, never was real and won’t be real. It’s a way to remove agression and tension, while away a few hours, and that’s it.
For those that the government worry about becoming violent over what they see, they have far more problems than a video game. In the past this sort of thinking has lead to censorship of comic books, music, film, and you name it. Surely you remember some kid trying to fly off a building by jumping only to find it didn’t quite work out that way.
So why aren’t we hearing about the military video games? You know the trainers to teach them how to sneak and shoot, how to fly a plane and kill, or how to do all the other violent things required in the military? The military has invested heavily into video tutors. Their not for sale but wanna bet they aren’t toting a rating on it?
For those that are violent, anything works for an excuse to find a reason when caught. What we can’t do is filter the imagination. As long as we can’t do that, the human mind is wonderously capable of finding self-justification. The most effective way to modify violence is in the enviroment. Games are only a small part of that enviroment and kids don’t live 24 hours a day in the games.
December 23rd, 2005 at 9:24 pm
http://p2pnet.net/story/2216
December 23rd, 2005 at 9:28 pm
“He said he believes ‘common sense will prevail over corporate profiteering’.”
This is quite hilarious, considering that his industry is more then happy to give ritalin and other brain altering drugs to 6 year olds (and younger) because they have “excessive hyperactivity” and learning disorders. What 6 year old kid doesn’t have excessive energy and actually wants to pay attention in school? At least video games don’t actually kill the people that buy them.
December 24th, 2005 at 2:12 am
Police records apparently show that there is not now, and never has been a “youth crime epidemic” and that youth crime stats started to fall in the same year the first major console was released. They’ve been falling every year since then apparently.
So why do some ppl want everyone to believe that young ppl are violent criminals, and that they are that way because of video games? Could it be established lamescream media outlets wanting to “minimise the damage” console games are doing to their revenues?