‘Fast & Furious 6′ Opens To Big $6.5M … 
‘Katie’ Shakeup: Rachel Miskowiec Replaces … 
Hammond On Cannes: French Hero Jerry Lewis On His Return To … 
Cannes: Another Jewelry Heist? $2.6M Necklace Missing After … 
Hammond On Cannes: Leo DiCaprio’s Moon Trip Tops … 
Specialty B.O. Preview: ‘Before Midnight’, … 
2012-2013 Season Network Rankings: CBS Sweeps In Final … 
Full 2012-2013 TV Season Series Rankings 
TOLDJA! Paramount Pocketing $190M From Disney For Marvel … 
‘Good Morning America’ Hits 19-Year Viewership … 
MGM Buys ‘Modern Family’ Producer Ben … 
‘Fashion Police’ Writers Chant On Picket Lines: … 
Universal Makes Seven-Figure Deal For ‘The School For … 
Steven Soderbergh Will Interrupt Retirement To Direct And … 
Cannes: EOne Announces Itself As Player In U.S. … 
Will LIN TV Stations Go Dark On Time Warner Cable? 
RATINGS RAT RACE: ‘Modern Family’, ‘Law … 
Hammond On Cannes: Paramount’s ‘Nebraska’ … 
Hot Trailer: Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s ‘Don … 
Hammond On Cannes: A New Day Comes To The Fest As HBO and … 
Cannes: Fleming Reflects And Finds Talented Trio A Breath … 
The MPAA is leading the charge on behalf of showbiz guilds against California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger’s 2005 California law banning the sale of violent video games to minors. The lobbying group for Hollywood studios is urging the Supreme Court to uphold a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that Schwarzenegger’s law is unconstitutional. The MPAA makes its case here:
WASHINGTON – A broad entertainment industry coalition today urged the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold a 9th Circuit Court of Appeals ruling that found unconstitutional the 2005 California law restricting the sale and rental to minors of computer and video games deemed to be overly violent.
The American Federation of Television and Radio Artists (AFTRA), Directors Guild of America, Inc. (DGA), Producers Guild of America (PGA), Screen Actors Guild (SAG), Writers Guild of America West, Inc. (WGAW), Independent Film and Television Alliance (IFTA), National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO) and Motion Picture Association of America, Inc. (MPAA) joined together to file an amicus brief in the case Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, which is scheduled for oral arguments on November 2.
“The history of the motion picture industry serves as a vivid illustration of the threat to First Amendment rights from the impulse to control and censor new forms of media—a threat reflected in the statute at issue before the Court. From the advent of motion pictures, a variety of state and local governments sought to restrict their content for the asserted purpose of protecting moviegoers from being exposed to harmful material,” the organizations explained in their brief.
“While parents have an undoubted interest in making informed judgments concerning the suitability of exposing their children to potentially objectionable content, [California has] failed to show that the government’s assistance is necessary to serve that interest,” the organizations’ brief continues. “And the fundamental lesson of the motion picture industry is that self-regulation can sufficiently enable parents to exercise their right to make informed judgments concerning movie content. The movie rating system has widely been praised for its effectiveness, and society’s long experience with the movie rating system demonstrates that a properly designed voluntary rating system can serve the relevant parental interest without the need for content-based government regulation.”
The entertainment industry coalition concluded that if the Supreme Court were to uphold California’s statute, it would have a “dramatic chilling effect on the motion picture industry.” Therefore, the coalition urged the Court to rule that “under settled First Amendment principles, California’s statute is invalid, and the judgment of the court of appeals should be affirmed.”
Loading ...
Please tell me others see in the gross hypocrisy of this. I know it’s been said by South Park and so many other but this kind of things disgust me. While they are handing out left and right “R” ratings for movies with bad language (even sparsely), any references to gay anything, etc. They are the one’s lobbying for 1st amendment rights to make sure that kids have the right to access to over the top violence that desensitizes them to violence. Please someone challenge MPAA’s monopoly on be judge, jury and executioners especially of indie films. The MPAA: we’re here to make our board, the studios money. A joke.
Yes, the hypocrisy is glaring. Unfortunately I think the hypocrisy lies with the consumer as well. They’ll sit through things getting blown up, crime shows constantly depicting weird and creepy violence directed towards women, kids shows & movies full of gunplay and hand to hand combat, etc… and no complaints, but Janet Jackson’s breast makes a surprise appearance during a half time show and they flood the network with righteous indignation. All I can figure is it’s our culture’s puritanical roots.
Actually, in this situation, anyway, the real hypocrisy is a guy who did movies like Terminator and Predator pretending that violent video games are somehow worse.
Movies:
G- all audiences
PG- parental guidance, but probably fine
pg-13- parental guidance, possibly even though you’re now a teen
R- 17 and under need adult
Games:
E- everyone
e-10- under 10 beware
t- it’s your pg13 of video games
m- it is the r of video games
The ratings systems mirror each other, so what’s the problem?
The problem is politicians like to have something for people to fear – and video games are the current it factor. Despite the fact that the median age of gamers is around 35, and has climbed steadily, people still assume they are all child entertainment.
This is an issue of free speech and poor parenting. If a kid gets his hands on a video game like Call of Duty, it’s the parents fault, just like if they go to an R movie. The stores or providers should be saying no, and the parents should be as well.
The MPAA is getting involved because if the supreme court rules against the game industry, it will mean that movies could be next. It’s a slippery slope to censorship.
Also, HH, shut up. No one likes you.
The problem nick is idiots, bleeding hearts, and a generation that doesn’t understand video games. Most politicians don’t know the average gamer is over 30, a professional, married, and has a least one child. They still video games are all for kids. I have two children and several M-Rated games. Guess what, folks. I don’t play my M-rated games around my kids nor do I leave them accessable. It is a parent’s responsibilty to be aware of their child, not the game developer, not the government. We’re breeding a nation of victims that take no accountability for their actions.
There are laws regarding the ages of children for many purchases including films, cigarettes, alcohol, admission to casinos and so forth.
As it appears that businesses lack serious self control selling their products to minors, I have no problem with this video game law.
Pretending it is a first amendment issue clearly demonstrates that it is the ‘show me the money’ culture which is driving these actions…not the challenge to freedom of speech.
Protect the children not the industry.
The problem with your argument is that every game is different. The ratings on games are done by a games industry group, just like movie ratings are done by the MPAA.
If this law stands, The MPPA’s ratings could also be considered to have the force of law behind them. You could be fined or sent to jail for allowing a 16 1/2 year old to see an R movie.
With cigarettes and alcohol it’s all cigarettes and all alcohol. And it’s the government deciding that it’s all cigarettes and alcohol. Not the cigarette ratings board that says that light cigarettes are okay for teens but 100s are only for adults.
Giving an industry ratings group’s ratings the force of law in determining what is unlawful is what’s wrong with the law.
That’s bullshit. It was ok when kids were encouraged to see a blood-bath like The Passion, but playing GTA goes over the line.
Dear DZ,
I already revised my statement about this. You might read it.
That being said, I doubt there is anyone reading this who would not immediately agree that neither The Passion of the Christ or Grand Theft Auto are suitable for minors. And those who took their minor children to see The Passion probably wished they did NOT.
I could barely get through it, and was extremely uncomfortable with the level of violence. Lastly, because it was a highly religious film marketed directly and effectively to the Christian demographic is the reason so many children were taken to see it.
Don’t for a moment tell me you would want your five year old and six year old watching that film unless you want them to experience in a most graphic sense man’s brutal inhumanity to man.
The bullshit is arguing about the violence…not the form in which it is delivered. However, in my general reply, I do agree that this may not be the best way to temper its reach to minors.
Tom, you are completely wrong. Game companies aren’t making games and then handing them out in schools – the way minors acquire games is through middle men – and those would possibly be at fault.
The problem is studies have shown the companies make a good faith effort to not sell to minors.
This is a parenting issue. Parents are failing their children.
There are no laws about films, either. It’s an industry standard. And sorry, Cigarettes =/= Video games. Video games have no affect on children.
Tom, you are a shining example of everything that is wrong with our fear based society.
Dear yeah, yeah, yeah,
At least I am not afraid to use my own name.
And yes, if folks like you think that none of this is impacting children so be it. I guess I will focus my fears on the environment, global nuclear proliferation, poverty, child hunger and disease, child pornography and sex slave sales, and all those other issues that a fear based mentality thrives upon.
You win!
Dear Tom,
I wanted to write a retort, but really everyone else below this post kind of owned you.
Anyway, I just wanted to put up my real name. So, you know, now you know who I am.
I’m Bob, Tom.
Bob.
Hi Bob,
It certainly appears that I was a majority of one on this. I learned from the comments, but still have strong concerns for children, but I am also deeply committed to the rights of the individual.
I hope you read this as this post is probably pretty much done.
My late father cried three times in front of me. Once when his mother passed, and when Winston Churchill passed. The last time I was in my early 20′s lying in my parent’s den watching television.
My father came in the room, stood over me and began to cry. Totally shocked, I ask him what was wrong.
He looked down and said, “I just feel so sorry for you because you will never know the freedom I had growing up. It hurts me to see so many of these gone and you will never know them”.
Bob, that was 45 years ago. I deeply understand maintaing individual freedom. I also worry a lot about young people…just like my father did.
to Tom
THEIR ARE NO LAWS AGAINST THE BUYING OF FILM. The selling of movies ethier at the box office or the movie store is based on industry standards not the government. the only reason that their are laws on tobacco, alcohol, and other controled substence is their is a proven hazard. Saddly for the people the studies that state their is a hazard are being killed by the scintific community because they have found unsicentific work, bias, and flaws that harm the study as well. The FBI state that Youth Violence is down, it has been this way from 1994 and onword. In other words, games are dangerous are out. Now the Obsence idea has to be proved by the Miller test and video games don’t pass that test (Passing means that you are obsence). The courts all over the US have agreed that games are a protected speech. In other words you need to make a law that dose not attack the speech’s first amendment rights and that is allowing minors to buy a speech a first amendment right.
Let’s put aside the proper way to do this for a moment.
If you are waiting for scientific evidence that there is any correlation between crime (youth violence) to determine if access to extensive violence of video games may be an influence…you are missing the point.
The point is that it is totally legal to permit your children to spend their lives “inside a technology” box comprised of iPads, iPods, computers, computer games, texting, tweeting and so forth until they either cannot or choose not to even have human dialogue with one another. I know many parents who are getting more and more concerned about how technology is both helping and hurting their children’s ability to think and interact in different social conditions.
I don’t like restrictions of any kind. That being said, if you do understand without scientific evidence (yet) that the current use of technology by many young people is, indeed, having negative impact on their ability to communicate and so forth…how hard is it for one to accept that exposure to the level of violence in these games is not good either?
At best, it only serves to continue to desensitize young people to violence.
I will concede there may be better ways to put stronger regulations concerning the sales of these materials to children…but, I will not accept that parents and folks in general can handle this all by themselves.
To be sure, many parents are quite concerned and diligent watching over their children and these issues, but many are not properly doing this, and some don’t care. And even those who do exercise reasonable guidance and control mechanisms know their children can work around these obstacles if they wish to do so almost at will.
So, perhaps, this is not the best way to attack this problem, but it is something which should be dealt with in a way that has some muscle in it to properly reduce children’s access to these materials.
I would like to see effective controls, but I will defer that this is probably not the best way to go. That being said, I am not sure there are truly an effective options on the table.
Sorry, that last comment was for Tom.
Tom,
Check the latest FTC report on marketing M rated games towards children. Video game industry scored higher than film, tv and recording industry in limiting children’s access to mature content. The ESRB rating system works. Many of the “protect the children” crowd cite studies that correlate aggressive behaviour with playing video games as proof that playing video games has a causal link to real world violence to support regulating video games. This fallacy has been proven wrong again and again, because they can’t explain why teen violence has gone down as the prevalence of interactive media has exploded. Kudos to the MPAA for standing up for common sense and broad 1st Amendment rights.
If you are a parent of a gamer, do your job and police your own kids.
The real underlying issue with all of this is “parenting”. If you raise your kids to have decent values and always make sure you monitor the type of content they’re experiencing, you shouldn’t have anything to worry about.
TOM-
Let me stat it again
The Studies that prove the casual link are found by the scientific community to be WORTHLESS because of Critical Flaws, Bias, and Unscintific work. In other words their is no credable evedince to prove your point.
That said their are good scientific work that video game inprove your brain, ability to learn, memory, being a better teamplayer, and also that people who play shooters have faster, more accurate reaction time (tested with a cognitive test, or a quiz for slow brains)In other words, games are good for people and guess what your “It will desenstize are children” is as old as the printed texts so GIVE IT A BRAEK. If children have not been afected by book, news, newspapers, TV, movies, and other other things. Please just drop that point.
Probably the most effective options to put on the table would be mandating classes on effective parenting techniques to teens and adults. If you want to pass a law with some chance at helping solve problems with parenting, you need to pass laws that actually address the issue of parents who are poorly equipped to parent. And by that, I do *not* mean specifically the poor. There are *plenty* of wealthy and middle-class parents who are ill-equipped to be parents.
Unfortunately, it is easier to write laws saying that Huck Finn or GTA are evil, bad and nasty, than it is to write a law that says parents must learn how to be parents. It would be “an attack on the family” “an slander against parents everywhere” “unreasonable government interference in our lives” to say that, ya know…maybe all parents/potential parents should have a few parenting classes, just to make sure they know the basics of what they might be getting into.
And hey, maybe they’re right. Then again, maybe child abuse, neglect, family violence, and other issues just might not be so prevalent in our society if people were given the tools and education ahead of time, instead of trusting that everyone jusy instinctively knows how to be a good parent.
I wonder how delusional the people that support California in their appeal to the US Supreme Court must be to think this “law” would actually work?
Never mind the cold hard fact that there is no harm to “protect” children from in the first place.
Never mind that this “law” would do absolutely nothing to prevent children from even playing the “violent” games.
Never mind that parents are already buying the games for their children anyways(what child outside of Richie Rich has $250-$300 lying around to buy a game console and another $50-60 to buy a game to go with it?).
I feel that SCOTUS will rule in favor of the video game industry in this case and it won’t even be close.
If the supporters of the law were so sure that they were going to prevail, why did two of those groups(“Common Sense” Media and the nutcases known as the Eagle Forum) try to bully the Utah attorney general in an attempt to keep him from signing on to an amicus brief by state attorney generals opposing California? The Utah attorney general ended up signing that brief, joining Rhode Island, South Carolina, Georgia, Arkansas, North Dakota, Washington, Oklahoma, Nebraska, and Puerto Rico.
It is all on the parents.. sadly any idiot can breed . I’ve seen parents ignore verbal warnings at the store. Hell even I have warned a few that a game may not be appropriate for their child . Only once did the parent thank me and return the game . Maybe if as a country we weren’t so violent there wouldn’t be such a desire to emulate it . Don’t Germans have a history of censorship . What war was that …?
The MPAA’s claim that its ratings give parents the information they need to make an informed decision breaks down when it comes to tobacco imagery, proven to recruit hundreds of thousands of new young smokers and with a long history of covert commercial arrangements between the US film and tobacco industries.
For a University of California report on MPAA’s tobacco practices, see http://www.escholarship.org/uc/item/8hn866tt.
This disconnect is especially dangerous because tobacco imagery is the only on-screen content shown to cause large-scale physical harm to adolescents — as ratified by such cautious federal scientific units as the National Cancer Institute and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC).
The MPAA’s mandate is to buffer the major studios from any regulation that might affect their ability to make money. The current ratings protect the companies’ interests, not the audience.