There is no California video games ban in effect yet, but video game law could change based on the current case before the Supreme Court. We've brought you the oral arguments, the Supreme Court transcripts and our opinions in Adam's post from D.C. and his Soapbox, but there's always more, folks.
Our own sharply-dressed Sess took to the steps to chat with California state Senator Leland Yee, who believes that more oversight is needed when it comes to policing video games. Senator Yee also feels that the framework is set for even more fundamental change that he sees as required to protect children from violent video games, but we'll let him spill the beans himself in this interview:
For more on this issue, be sure to check out Video Games on Trial at g4tv.com/gamesontrial!
Comments are Closed
Comments
Displaying 41–60 of 110
21234564
metalronin
lol he said joystick
bigmonstefan
props to sessler for how he handled that interview.
dantey20
Name one game were you set someone on fire an piss them out
Infinius
Excuse me, Mr Yee. Could you tell me where to find the NON-interactive video games? Also, how do you urinate on someone in Grand Theft Auto? Because I was unable to find that particular feature of the game.
Dash4300
Can someone give me a clear explanation of what will happen if the law is passed? I don't get exactly what will happen...
darthjafo
First..i never thought i'd see the words "adam sessler" and "professional journalist" in the same sentence. Kinda funny.
Second..this will work about as well as R-Rated movies.
Third..we already have the ESRB. I see parents in the gamestop i go to buying games for thier kids all the time. Not nearly enough judging by the whiny little kids in MW2..but some. The onus should be on the stores to "card" or deny under age kids from buying Black Ops, or the parents to pay more attention to what their kids are doing. But here the gubment is again, stepping in where it shouldn't
Fourth..if all they want to do is make it more strict for kids under 18 to buy lets say..Black Ops..then ya know what? I'm all for it. Why? Cause it will hopefully mean less whiny, screaming 10 year olds in my game.
LeBigMac
set someone on fire and urinate on them?
bamajr
OK lets see if we can put this in perspective:
15 years of age get learners permit to drive
16 get drivers license
18 you can serve in the military (Granted no longer a minor but you get the point)
ok you can do all these things and you are considered a minor yet if this law passes you can't buy certain video games.
Give me a break. There are to many ways in this day and age for individuals, be it young or old, to get their hands on video games no matter if it is violent or not.
Sessler did a great job on this report. I would have probably had to set the Senator straight in a few way.
Ghost_Slayer666
This whole thing is a load of crap caused by incompetent parents who are not doing what they are supposed to do, if you don't want your kid blowing some virtual image's head off than do not let him/her get the game, and if your kid got it without your say then there is this thing you can do...get ready here it is...TAKE IT AWAY! from there you can try to return the game or just keep it your self until you believe your child can handle the content , what is so hard about that?
topgamer101
it's interesting to listen to a lawyer who isn't a gamer explain these things. He brings up interactive a lot, but all video games are interactive. I'm not sure they know quite how far the reach of the definition he is giving will stretch.
Either way, I believe the court will agree with the lower courts decisions.
dreamkun
He wants to prevent the sale of these violent video games to minors.......... well i know the smaller stores don't really care who they sell what game to, but as far as places like gamestop and others like it, i've needed an I.D to buy some of the games i like. I wonder if the Senator is aware that most parents are either irresponsible and buy the video games in question for their children anyway, or they don't see the problem with the violence and buy the games in question for their child anyway. Of course there are the parents that say " hey, i don't think you should play this game, i'm taking it away from you." but i can't really remember the last time i met a parent who said that.
Higgil
1. If you have your psychologist saying 'there is no hard evidence to correlate violent video games with the violence in teenagers, the psychologist that you probably HIRED TO GIVE YOU SPECIFIC RESULTS, there is something wrong with your statement.
2. He stated that there are laws in effect to stop children from getting these 'ultra' violent video games, and yet he wants to introduce more laws? Its called parenting, stop making excuses for it.
3. You can't let someone declare 'ultra' violent video games bad, because the definition of 'ultra' will be altered once it is in place. This isn't a well thought out proposal by any means except for a seed that will eventually try to overthrow the video game industry and remove violent video games period. Though he says hes not trying to, its pretty damn obvious what hes trying to do.
4. I feel sorry for you Cali, I truly do. I hope this doesn't gain momentum.
TychoKepler
"We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg with mercy, being merciless and decapitating them, shooting people in the leg so they fall down," said Roberts.
"Pour gasoline over them, set them on fire and urinate on them. We do not have a tradition in this country. We protect children from that. We don't actively expose them to that."
- Chief Justice John Roberts
So what you're telling me is that we don't have a tradition of using our biological enhancements to grab randoms off the street, dragging them up a 20 story building only to punch a hole through their chest and steal their identity and memories!?
Maybe we should make a game called Grand Theft Native American, or Lobbyist Simulator.
greeknerd
He claims he has studied psychology but he is completely ignoring one of the golden rules that is taught at the 101 and 102 level. Correlation DOES NOT equal causation.
obriens0n
good job keeping your cool adam props
Stormraught
Swear we were selling crack to children, ive been playing games from all ranges since the age of 4-5 and I grew up to become..... A HISTORIAN OOOGA BOOOGA
Might as well cut all violent media, in the news, in the movies and obviously tree house TV where I see puppets beating other puppets with foam mallets. Stupid bill with stupid arguments behind it. Lawd
sephirothcloud
I'm too surprise adam didn't go insane at Lee(probably cuz he's not as insane as Jack is) I think adam shoulda pointed out theirs been studies were games is a good tool to release your stress on the games,plus Lee is obviously no gamer or seen walkthroughs online. The Object in Gta IS NOT what he and others say in this faulty science, its this faulty science that makes adults in other countries unable to play violent games legally. The esa sould bring examples in games like Splatterhouse or Metroid Zelda is all you do in those is fight monsters(occasionally Gannon in Zelda). Why is it people go insane in games when the player kills virtual humans! In movies Humans kill Humans nobody is against it...but in Video Games different Story!
frans42000
Could it not be argued that recorded media of any type is participatory as well? If I sit on a couch and watch a violent movie, I allow the violence to continue because I do not stop the recording. In fact I initiated the viewing of violence by pressing a button. How do games differ from this?
ShdwFox
I also would like to add that I'm very appreciative that G4TV and Sessler posted a video that shows us someone else's view point from the opposite side of the court. You further showed your integrity by interviewing senator Leland Yee politely and appropriately. Once again, I have to salute you Sessler, and the G4TV crew. Your all true Americans I greatly respect.
ShdwFox
@xxxciter - Your argument starts to skew a bit during and after the third paragraph. So yes, your definitely confused. And I would strongly recommend you read more about this case.
First, it's debatable whether or not video games (i.e. a "virtual reality") is anymore violent than other media such as books or movies. A judge on a similar supreme court case basically said once that a book can be as engrossing as any other form of media. If it's a good one, it can draw you into it's characters, make you feel like them, and even make you understand their actions during the course of the novel.
With that being said, how are kids going to interpret these unlawful actions, which also happen during the course of novels, TV, and music; any different when they play them out in a video game? In high school, when I was still considered a minor, I read several interesting books that you might be interested in. First their was Romeo and Juliet. Recall the part about them committing suicide? That's pretty violent in it's own little way. Or what about Of Mice and Men? The main character shoots his best friend in the head after his friend accidentally strangles a woman to death. Again, that's pretty violent. The problem is if you start banning violence in video games, their is nothing to stop a snowball effect that would ban violence in other areas of entertainment such as books, movies, and music.
I assume by MA they/you are referencing "Mature" rated video games. And if you think movies are legally binding (like your other replier also mentioned) your sadly mistaken. Like video games, both forms of entertainment are only as restricted as they are by their entertainment industry. Movie theaters don't want a bad reputation for showing a child an adult-themed movie because their parents would show up later and make a big fuss about it. The same goes with video games. You have to show your ID in order to purchase an M-rated video game. This isn't enforced by the law, it's only enforced by the retailer selling the video game. They do it for the same reasons as movies: getting negative feedback from your customers is bad for business.
Your forth paragraph basically alludes to the decisions made so far by the Supreme Court. They pretty much agree that this concept, banning violent video games, is way too vague for them to enforce anything. If they want to enforce anything remotely like this (banning violence from protected speech), they'll have to be -very- specific with the details.
The worse part of all this is your interpretation of the ESRB (the video game rating system). The ESRB is basically one of the most highly intuitive and praised rating systems in the industry. First, their actually -is- an adult themed category, that you almost never see, conveniently labeled A - for Adult. The reason you never see it is because it's pretty much basic porn. Nearly all public retailers don't even sell them. The next runner up is M - for Mature, which is generally considered the 18+ age category. Retailers will sell these to you; only if you show an ID proving your age. And if you've noticed, all video games have these labeled ratings in the bottom right corner of the game's case. Both front -and- back. It even clearly defines the reasons why these video games got these ratings to the right of the letter.
Displaying 41–60 of 110
21234564