Florida Follows Suit on Violent Game Restrictions

Posted on Thursday 27th October 2005 at 08:25 by SilverFork

By now most gamers in the US are familiar with the recent bill passed in California intended to further restrict the sales of graphically violent video games to minors. This has seemingly acted as a cue for other states to follow its lead, beginning with Florida senator Alex Diaz de la Portilla, who introduced a similar bill this week.

Diaz de la Portilla's bill, more specifically, is nearly identical to the bill approved by California governer Arnold Schwarzenegger. Both provide corresponding examples of what constitutes a violent video game, and the limit on fines for breaking this law as well as the required 2-inch-by-2-inch label reading "18" on the covers of adult-themed games are virtually the same. Apparently the only difference between the two bills is that, under Diaz de la Portilla's legislation, anyone under the age of 18 will be forbidden to access violent games within arcades in addition to stores.

Video game legislation is becoming quite a hot topic among state leaders. Tighter laws regarding violent games have garnered heavy support on both sides of the political spectrum in recent years, and further debates aren't expected to cause a division along party lines.

Source: GameSpot

Posted in: Gaming Industry News, North America

Written by	SilverFork
	Contributor
	Member Since: 2004-06-06
	News articles posted: 53
	More articles by SilverFork

Comments

Galsic	Comment 1: 2005-10-27 09:00
	Quote The bill would likely be a welcome change of tone in publicity for Diaz de la Portilla, who has spent much of the year embroiled in an ethics scandal over his failure to comply with campaign finance laws, according to the St. Petersburg Times. Pretty convenient for him, huh ? Aside from that commentary, this is yet another governmental substitute for good old fashion parenting and common sense and all that usual blah blah blah. Don't these people have better things to deal with than trying to up their public image with (relatively) worthless laws and such? At least this one threw in the arcade deal...that part might be enforceable.
karasuman	Comment 2: 2005-10-27 11:13
	If we, as a society, are going to say that certain media must be kept out of the hands of a certain age group (R-rated movies, M or AO games, etc.), it makes sense to enforce those rules. It would be nice ifthings could be more left up to the parents, but many parents apparently don't want that responsibility. The whole GTA: San Andreas fiasco started when a grandmother sued Rockstar for misleading her about the game she'd purchased for her young teenage grandson. A label that says it's appropriate for 17+ is misleading? The fact is that a lot of parents are sick and tired of fighting with their children over whether or not they're allowed to have these games--I know mine are. What they're really advocating is censorship. They want to make it unprofitable for companies to make games with this kind of content so that instead of telling little Jacob (my brother) no, the games simply won't be available for him to ask for. I did find this article about whether violent games really deserve to be the target of all this fuss. And as for politicians having better things to do than trying to up their public image, Galsic...do you think that politicians ever do anything else? This is a pretty safe issue. The people who really speak out against it are either always vocally against censorship (and therefore derided as liberals, or commie mutant traitors, or something), or gamers (and therefore derided as adolescent or post-adolescent males who are rarely heard when they're not advocating their right to murder people messily on screen).
Del S	Comment 3: 2005-10-27 12:10
	What is the difference between this legislation and these? Very little: They're all smokescreens. Diversions. Something to cover someone as they are doing something else. They only emit smoke for about fifty seconds too, and work for about five. The problem's usually not lack of legisiation, it's that it's not being enforced. In this case, the problem is that there is not sufficent power given to the ratings boards in the US as opposed to the legal abilities that the BBFC have in the UK. It should be instituted at federal level that sees it a crime to allow people to purchase a game, DVD, or watch a movie in cinemas that they are too young to veiw/buy. When the media item is on general release though, it should be legal for a parent to review the item in question and assume responsibility for ensuring their children are not playing things they do not want them playing. In short, we should prohibit minors getting a hold of ALL age-rated materials they aren't meant to veiw without parental consent. It's a damn sight better than Jack 'I am a goldfish' Thompson's 'BAN EM ALL LET GOD SORT EM OUT' approach. After all, it's a crime to buy booze and cigarettes for a minor, but it's okay to let them take a little in the home if they are underage in most places. Meanwhile, over here, the BBFC should use it's powers more. Oh, and the government should wake up and give the police more ability to combat growing and real problems thatare contributing to the ones they're dealing with badly.
Galsic	Comment 4: 2005-10-27 15:56
	Quote (karasuman @ 27th October 2005 06:13) It would be nice if things could be more left up to the parents, but many parents apparently don't want that responsibility. But wouldn't it be easy for minors to get these games, anyway...through these very parents? Maybe I should've worded what I said differently. After all, some of these politicians might actually care. The law would have seemed pointless if not, I suppose, for the possibility of stopping lawsuits like the one ye mentioned...but if minors can still get their hands beer and cigarettes, then they're still gonna get the games, so eh. Quote At least this one threw in the arcade deal...that part might be enforceable. Come to think of it, if this law was around 12 years ago, I wouldn't have been able to play Mortal Kombat. I was even capable of pulling off the fatalities...and all by the tender age of 12. Of course, by then, I already knew the difference between right and wrong, reality and fantasy, so I wasn't affected adversely by the game, anyway. In fact, I eventually grew out of that nonsense. In hindsight, all that blood and gore was simply novel.
Rujuken	Comment 5: 2005-10-29 04:30
	I remember seeing something similar to karasuman's link on G4TV. I always thought all this fuss about how violent video games are making kids violent was a bunch of BS. Mainly because there was no evidence. But now that I've seen that and read the link it makes me rather angry how much lying is going on and how much things are getting blown out of proportion. Well, I guess its as others have already said. Video games is the new rock & roll. A crap load of people used to think rock was the music of the devil and should be banned. Now its accepted as normal. It'll be the same way for games eventually and people will quite trying blame violence on them. And unless the government is willing to start searching homes for underage kids playing violent games, I don't think these bills are going to do anything. Its a good idea I guess, but they are trying to prevent a problem that isn't actually there (violence induced by video games).
Please Log In to Add Comments

Printable Version (in new window) · Top of Page

Caves of Narshe Version 6
©1997–2024 Josh Alvies (Rangers51)

All fanfiction and fanart (including original artwork in forum avatars) is property of the original authors. Some graphics property of Square Enix.