He is listed as the defendant because he is the Governor, nothing more.

Let's be clear: Schwarzeneggar is named in the case because he's the governor of California. If the case had reached the Supreme Court next January, it would have been renamed for Jerry Brown.

Yes, he signed the bill, but to blame him as an individual for the law ignores the fact that laws are written and passed by legislatures.

When I first read this new law I though the video game industry would be rejoicing and was confused when they challenged it...

Think about it, how much flak do these game studios take from irresponsible parents who yell "My 12 year old son Timmy was playing GTA; a game with hookers and gang violence. Video games are evil. Protect the children!" With this law the game studios can say "Wait, excuse me, who bought little Timmy the rated M game? You did. Now shut up." And then give said parent the middle finger.

The blame would be passed from the game studios to the parents. Making the parent ACTUALLY have to parent because they can't just push the blame onto the game studios. Because, this law doesn't say that children can't play rated M video games. Only that a parent MUST buy the game for the child. It only empowers the parents more because little Timmy can't secretly buy GTA and play it, because selling little Timmy GTA would be illegal.

Truthfully, I wish that this extended to all forms of media. Games, videos, music. A system where I as a parent can buy my child whatever *I* deem is appropriate for them but my child cannot sneak out and buy rated M games, rated R movies, or mature music. (I think music should have ratings too, if you don't agree with me then go listen to a 10 year old girl sing along to Lil' Wayne's Lollipop. *Shudders*)

And why do the video game industry care so much, they've constantly said their demographic for M games isn't 12 year Tommy, but 18-30 year old adults? If that is true then it wouldn't affect them.

This law in no way limits children from playing rated M games. It only requires that the parent BUY the game for the child, thus ensuring the parents are the suppliers of the game. Thus, it would push the blame onto the parents. This law wouldn't affect responsible parents who already censure the games their children play, it would affect irresponsible parents who ignore their children and blame the game studios.

Don't be so quick to absolve the governor. As much as I loathe to bring it up, when Proposition 8 was challenged in court, Schwarzenegger refused to defend it (as did AG Jerry Brown). The amendment was almost tossed out on the notion that only the government can defend the laws, and in this case an attempt was made to decline defending the new amendment. (Proposition 8's supporters were eventually allowed to defend it in court.)

So, yes, Schwarzenegger shows up because it's up to the state to defend its laws, but precedent tells us that he'll abstain from the responsibility should he feel particularly inclined (and that the courts will allow such).

Uhm.... No offense... really... but if your 12 yr old can go buy M rated games without you being present at all, there are far more problems present than this law.

For one, any reputable store will ask the kid where his parents are and refuse to sell. Many places have policies that fire employees for this.

For two, how is that your kid is allowed to keep this game and you not raise [redacted] with the store and/or your kid for such a purchase to take place.

2a) How can your kid sneak what video game he is playing, especially for long enough to have any kind of affect on him?

No, sorry, this is like arguing that there should be a law that minors can't watch R rated films. It seriously is not the fault of the store if Timmy is playing GTA, or at least not for long enough to matter.

Oh and since it is now an enforced law, the government is giving a nongovernment entity the rights to govern.

And worst of all, while this seems harmless on the outside, "things rated M not sold to minors", now all of the studios will be careful of what qualifies as M. We have no representation of what qualifies as M. Creators have no representation of what qualifies as M. Even if the government took over, there is no telling what would qualify as M.

It's a slippery slope and the entire reason the ESRB ever came to be. It came to exist because the game industry looked at the movie industry and realized without it, without any guidelines, the state WOULD take over and cause worse havoc than this case.

Actually no, worst of all, is that even with this law, kids will do what they do now : "Daddy, can I have this video game?" "Sure."


I will pay for a plane ticket to witness a kid sneaking to a store, buying an M game, and being allowed to keep it for a week without you knowing and you be considered a good parent by your peers. It is worth my time to see proof of this ridiculous claim.

And we, the gamers, will miss out on many games because of the backlash of studios going under since stores don't want the hassle and simply choose not to sell games anymore. I even bet a store will eventually have to be licensed to sell M games if this passes. So many ways for the government to interfere from this slippery slope.

@Icepyro

Thanks for responding, first point of clarification I am 22 and do not have a 12 year old son named Timmy. I forgot that by defending this law I would most likely be identified as a concerned parent. I am not. Hopefully that changes your views on my perspective. I am not a "Protect the Children ARGHH!" parent that many gamers are used to butting heads with. Figured I'd clarify that.

And I agree, a 12 year old really shouldn't be buying games from a store by themselves. But the sad truth is, it happens. This law will not affect responsible parents and obedient children. When I do have children you can bet I will be checking every single game that comes into my house. But that is because I will be a responsible parent.

The problem is actually the irresponsible parents who like to point the blame at everyone else. (And the game stores like Bestbuy who only refuse to sell M rated games to children when they feel like it) An irresponsible parent will not care if their child is playing Postal II or Grand Theft Auto. But you can bet that when called out on it that irresponsible parent will point their finger at the game studios and scream "They are the ones who created and sold this filth to my child!" and will not take any of the blame. For a good example go type "Jack Thompson" into Google and look up his response to the Virginia Tech shootings... that man is horrible.

As for the second part, yes my *future* child should not be sneaking games past me. But the truth is, it happens. I personally bought GTA and played it in my room without my parents knowledge. My parents trusted me, were very strict with censuring what I played, and yet they never found out I had GTA. I am sure you hid things from your parents, it really is not that hard.

In the end your points really don't address this law. Since your saying that a 12 year old should never be in a game store alone how does this law (Mandating that an adult be present to buy the game) change that? It actually supports your point, ensuring that a parent is available with the child. Second, you said that children really can't sneak games past their parents. How does the law (Mandating that an adult be present to buy the game) change that? Instead of being caught with the game when the child comes home they are just barred from purchasing the game at the store.

Both of your points do not affect this law passing because neither of your scenarios will be adversely affected by its passage.

@Icepyro

Hey again, happy to see some more discussion on this topic.

I don't quite agree with California's take on this law. The state should not decide on an individual basis. Instead the ESRB should be given the ability to fine stores who sell M rated games to minors. While that is empowering a private entity, it is the easiest way. Game companies already have to check their games past the ESRB and have a good idea of how their game will rate. (They don't walk in expecting an E rating and end up with an M)

So the "slippery slope" idea that State regulation would spiral out of control is kinda false. If the ESRB (Or a national government entity like the ESRB) is enacted then there wouldn't be any problems, the standards for each rating would be known, and game companies would be fine. I don't like Californias *vague* description so I am against it there, but the idea of regulating games based on a central entity is a good idea to me.

As for the inability for children to sneak a game past diligent and *good* parents. Ha! Children are sneaky, hell I was sneaky. I played GTA for 2 years without my parents knowing. They trusted me, and since the XBox was in my room I could play it during the day and when they walked in I would pause it. They checked my games and I just hid the GTA box so they never saw a game with M on it. They were good parents who got suckered by a good liar.

As I said, I am pretty sure that you have hidden things from your parents. I don't know how old you are but be it 2 years or 20 years since you were 14 you DID sneak something.

Thanks for discussing, look forward to hearing your rebuttal.

@Arjunas
@Icepyro
When did I step from WoW.com to Debate.com?

Now for my reply :D
I have to say that California is wrong on this. For one it should NEVER be the states responsibility to censer what our kids view. That should always be up to the parent. Parents are the ones raising their children not the state and thus the parents should take some responsibility.

As for the sneaking the video game: again bad parenting. Parents should watch their kids, watch what they play, or just go into their room and maybe take a look around. (my dad did this with "I am just helping you clean your room son...o what is this?)

It is all on the parents, while I can say that some blame would go to the store it is still something that the state should never get involved in. The store owners, managers, Parents, and employees are the ones who mess up. Not the kid, we should not have our free speech restricted just because someone is lazy in their job and their responsibility.

Arjunas: have you gone on to killing people for fun and profit?

That's the REAL problem with this law. It presumes that violent video games are somehow more harmful than movies, books, or music. The justices pointed out how utterly biased and poor this law is at several points. The violence has to be the depiction of "gratuitous violence against a human being". They asked what the difference between gratuitous and normal violence was. Permanent damage was the best the lawyer for Californis could come up with. "so I I decapitate someone but they come back to life, it isn't permanent so it is fine? What if I maim a dwarf. Is that okay since they aren't human?"

Guess no one can PVP against Humans now in WoW. Though killing everyone else is fine. I guess California thought EMFH wasn't OP enough...

Arjunas, you know how you don't see any AO games? That's because the industry is self-censoring. They know most retailers won't sell them, so they don't make them.

The government would be the one to decide what was too violent, and what was not. And if a developer created a game decided too violent, they may be fined. So they simply wouldn't make any games that came close to that, and we would lose many games. And even if they were to pass the rule, the individual retailer still might not take a chance, and simply not sell the game.

It's all in the court transcript. The thing about it banning sales to minors is just the tip. The actual effect it would have on the industry is devastating.