18 rated

[Sabre]

There is some case in the US called Brown vs EMA. The basic idea is that America is trying to pass a law that bans the sale of 18 rated games to kids. Simply put, if a shop sells a game to someone who is clearly under age, then the shop gets fined. Most of the EU works under this system and everything is fine. Hell, a shop can still sell a game to a pairent who says they intend their kids to play it. As far as I can tell, the only people effected by this are kids and people who market adult games to kids. (see the US Dead Space 2 advert with the tag line "Your mom will hate it, but you will love it")

So all is fine imo. I see no issue with this. What I don't understand is the other side of the debate. Apparently this will crush freedom of speach, only games pro USA games about fluffy puppies will ever be made, and within 6 months America will be an orwellian dystopia. Which seems a bit of an insane exageration to me.

[Arashikage]

Can you link us to the article so we can actually see where it says this? As far as I'm concerned, they don't have 18 rated games here anyway, they just have M which is 17. Then after that you got AO but those games are barely ever seen.

["User"]

Can you link us to the article so we can actually see where it says this? As far as I'm concerned, they don't have 18 rated games here anyway, they just have M which is 17. Then after that you got AO but those games are barely ever seen.

http://www.giantbomb.com/news/if-you-dont-know-about-brown-v-ema-you-should/3421/

Essentially, they are trying to label severe forms of violence as "obscene" and thus should not be sold to minors in the same way as pornography can't be bought by kids. They're trying to equate the two, just as porn failed to be labeled as "free speech" in 1973 they are trying again with violence and other graphic descriptions found in games.

This is stupid case IMO. If this passes, what's to stop people from trying to relegate violent T.V. shows? I mean...porn in T.V. is already relegated to after certain hours of the day. Dangerous precedent here and this should not be allowed to happen.

[Sabre]

Erm, violence is obscene. Hence the 18/M rating. I don't see what not selling 18 rated games to kids has to do with free speech though.

[Drasiana]

Ah. This is what the article means.

It's not saying that M-rated games should be compared to R-rated movies, but rather treated more like contraband (alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, etc.) in which fines are severe if a child is sold one. They would also have to put them in a restricted area of a rental/sales store, etc.

This is quite over the top, but I don't see how this is impairing "free speech" so much as severely enforcing a pre-existing rule (the reason the ratings are there to begin with). Too severely, mind you.

Just abide by the game ratings and don't buy your kids goddamn M-rated games if you're so worried about Little Timmy getting permanently scarred from some computer-generated blood. Why has this concept been so hard for people to grasp?

[Sabre]

Ah. This is what the article means.

It's not saying that M-rated games should be compared to R-rated movies, but rather treated more like contraband (alcohol, cigarettes, pornography, etc.) in which fines are severe if a child is sold one. They would also have to put them in a restricted area of a rental/sales store, etc.

This is quite over the top, but I don't see how this is impairing "free speech" so much as severely enforcing a pre-existing rule (the reason the ratings are there to begin with). Too severely, mind you.

Just abide by the game ratings and don't buy your kids goddamn M-rated games if you're so worried about Little Timmy getting permanently scarred from some computer-generated blood. Why has this concept been so hard for people to grasp?

I think part of the reason could be that kids can just buy the game without their pairents permission anyway? I dont know. Just guessing.

[Xortberg]

Nope. I definitely don't look like a little boy, and I still had to show my ID to buy God of War 3. Little kids aren't going to be buying any M-rated games themselves any time soon.

[Drasiana]

Some places aren't as strict. I don't know if it's *more* strict in America but it's a gamble here, either they ID you or they don't give a shit, and more often it's the latter.

However, a lot of it is the parents considering many games are birthday/Christmas presents. And these parents have no reason to whine when these violent games they're preaching against were bought by them.

["User"]

I was reiterating what one of the guys in that article was saying about free speech, personally I don't agree with it but yeah, I should have said mentioned that as well in my post.

[Arashikage]

*Ahem*

I believe your answer lies here.

[kkstarfox]

Not selling M-Rated video games to minors is not hindering the freedom of speech of either the minor or the game designer. It seems that they are just trying to preserve the purity of children, and or trying to lessen violence among teenagers. That and its trying to get parents responsible. Yes a parent can buy their child a game, but the parent knows what game the kid is getting and why it got the rating it did. Sure there are ways around it like any law, but it is for the good intent and flashing your ID won't kill ya. Its protecting the future, our children. I think its a good idea. Sides there is more to do then video games for fun And they can still play the other games that arent rated M.

["User"]

I read about the Court's decision at work today, obviously the right call.

[Mellow Walrus]

One of the main problems is that not enough parents pay enough attention to the ratings on the side of the box. Mine weren't as clueless about that though, one I wanted to rent Conker's Bad Fur Day because of the cartoonish looking animals on the cover. After playing it now that I'm not quite as innocent, I know I surely would have been scarred a bit by it. That doesn't seem to be the case for most of the people around me, I see little kids everywhere with Master Chief action figures. Sure, things like that tend to still be marketed at adult otakus and all, so it wasn't marketed directly at the children. I still know quite a few young ones that actually do play games like that, Grand Theft Auto, etc.

I wouldn't mind it if such games were pulled away from those too young for it, but once they find the next source that supplies mature material they'll go with that. Now, I do admit that giving people direct control over the violent actions in a game isn't a positive influence for kids. But even they should know the difference between decapitating people in a game, and decapitating them in real life. The worse it could probably do is give people fantasies on how they could get revenge on their enemies. If they manage to go through with it though, they're under much more influence than any old video game.

What I want to know is if the laws will only affect them purchasing games, or if it also applies to playing them. Where I live it's of course illegal for minors to buy cigarettes, but no charges are made if they smoke so long as they don't have anyone buying it for them. If my town ends up tolerating minors smoking while demonizing half the video games in the market, you'll hear me groaning.

[Sabre]

What I want to know is if the laws will only affect them purchasing games, or if it also applies to playing them.

That's what baffled me about this too. The law was about selling games, not making or playing them, just selling them. Booze, films and even games use this system here and elsewhere, which is why I find this thing blown out of proportion, with people going on about free speech and the like.

I was talking to a friend today who explained why this was the case. According to him, the case is not about the law itself, which is reasonable (kids aren't happy but beyond that...), but rather the method to get it passed was that of claiming games don't qualify for free speech, which is a pretty stupid way to go about it imo.