Comments on: Government Oversight in Video Games: Free Speech or Obscenity?

By: Follow Up: Video Game Limits Struck Down by Supreme Court in California Case | HomeStation Magazine

Wed, 29 Jun 2011 07:13:15 +0000

[…] by Johneboy1970, HSM guest contributorGreetings HSM readers!Here’s my follow up article to “Government Oversight in Video Games: Free Speech or Obscenity?” which contains the decision […]

By: cthulu93

cthulu93 — Thu, 09 Jun 2011 09:15:17 +0000

TY john and yes the thing about government branches is quite true.Once given a toehold they will expand greatly,this is not always a bad thing but great care and thought should be given before allowing them into anything.But this oversight thing really doesn’t need much thought really,the government can’t adequetely watch itself let alone another industry.

By: Burbie52

Burbie52 — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 14:26:00 +0000

You know the silliest thing about this whole fiasco is that it won’t stop a thing. Just like many of the morality laws that have been made for our “protection” or our children’s, many people will just ignore it and do what they want anyway. How many times have you been to a theater and seen parents bringing kids to an age inappropriate film? All this law will do is make government bigger(as if it isn’t big enough already)and add to our tax burden to pay for it. Somehow I don’t see them creating a division of morality police bashing down doors and checking each household for inappropriate video playing. They would have to catch the kids in the act, because the parents are obviously old enough to play the games. This whole thing is a joke really and unenforceable.

By: Terra_Cide

Terra_Cide — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 01:29:40 +0000

This is definitely a pure, short-sighted power grab.

Think about it -- just a generation ago, how many adults with children did you know play video games? I’m not saying there were none, but they were definitely in the minority.

That is beginning to change, and the tipping point is coming.

The real solution, as John observed and experienced, is increasing awareness of the existing ESRB ratings, not regulation made redundant in a few decades by life-long gamers who know more about a given game franchise than the pencil pusher that decides if it’s “child friendly” or not.

Caveat emptor.

By: johneboy1970

johneboy1970 — Wed, 08 Jun 2011 00:40:19 +0000

@Cthulu: Very astute observations. Indeed, once a branch of government is set up (whether for good or ill) it tends to create many tendrils and offshoots…many of which having to do with keeping an eye on the activities of the original trunk, so to speak. Additionally, once an agency is set up said agency has to find ways to justify its existence. If the Court rules that the government indeed has such jurisdiction in this case, we will all be seeing mainstream news stories on the evils of violent video games in the hands of minors. A boogyman os always necessary to swing popular sentiment in areas which are originally considered ludicrous.

Personally, I think this move has little to do with raising revenue for the state (such as in the case of the red-light cameras popping up in many place). Initially, it was used by Governer Schwarzenegger to prop up his poll numbers as he catered to “concerned parents groups”. Then it was moved forward, in my opinion, as a pure power grab. It seems that governmental control via reliance and restrictions is the mode du jour or our current political climate.

@Norse: NorseGamer as John Galt in the movie version of “Atlas Shrugged”? You got my vote! I’d pay the price of admission (plus popcorn and sno-caps) to see that on the big screen.

@Burbie: I agree with you completely, Burbie. What I didn’t include in the article is that this push has already been struck down in every lower court it has come up in…which is why I was a tad surprised to see it in the docket for this year’s session. Hopefully, the high Court will go the same route.

Unfortunately, if this is marked as “Constitutional” we’ll be sure to see more states piling on the band wagon, eventually followed by the Federal government (and they will say, of course, that it’s all in the interest of protecting our children).

To paraphrase Moses…errrrr, Heston, “They can pry my wireless controller from my cold dead hands!” :>

By: Burbie52

Burbie52 — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 18:29:41 +0000

This whole idea of the government getting involved at this level in our personal decisions about our children is ludicrous. I have friends who don’t allow their kids to watch anything over a pg rating or play any video games too old for them. It is up to each individual family to decide whats best for their kids, and though some may make bad choices, it is their choice to make, not the governments. I believe most parents try to make right choices for their children, but is we as a people allow the government to start down this road, it is a very slippery slope as mentioned that can lead anywhere they choose for it to go. This needs to be shot down and I am grateful to see it has been opposed enough to make it to the Supreme Court. We as voters need to contact whoever can get the message to them that we don’t want this in any way, shape manner or form.

By: cthulu93

cthulu93 — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 10:25:36 +0000

Not only would it serve no demonstrable benefit but I believe it could be used as a vehicle for some very questionable actions on the part of politicians.From the outright illegal,bribes,to the objectionable,legislating morality,this could be a fertile field for corrupt and misguided politicians.Then I could see,in 5-10 years time,the need for a new layer of government to keep an eye on this layer.In the end the public would be paying for something it never wanted,never really needed,and will most likely never be rid of.In the end if there is a need for this,which I doubt,then all it would take to take care of the problem is for parents to become a little more involved in their kids gaming habits.Which has the benefit of making families closer as well as not saddling the public with new taxes or fees to pay for new ways to needlessly intrude in ppl’s lives.

By: NorseGamer

NorseGamer — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 08:51:00 +0000

Personally, I really don’t see the value of state or federal government oversight in controlling the ratings and sales of video games. The only justification for the population incurring such an expense is that it might somehow help prevent an underage, “impressionable” youth from committing acts of violence or sexual misconduct against other living beings.

The problem with this conceit is that someone who is so emotionally or mentally unstable as to be moved by a video game to commit illegal acts *was a doorknob to begin with.*

(It’s sort of like the old fallacy that speed kills. No, speed does not kill. Stupid drivers kill. Otherwise, how do you explain that Germany’s autobahns have a lower per-capita death rate than America’s roads?)

I don’t mean to go all John Galt here, but government oversight of the video game industry would, in my view, serve no demonstrable benefit at all.

Epic article, John. Thanks for writing it!

By: cthulu93

cthulu93 — Tue, 07 Jun 2011 08:01:23 +0000

As will I.I strongly suspect the state of california is more interested in raising revenue out of this law than it is in protecting children.It seems that whenever a government in this country wants to do something of dubious legality they trot out”National Security”or”It’s for the children” but I really have to ask”Since when did the government become so Moral and the population so immoral that the government would always act in our best interests?”