Sponsored Links

Sponsored Links

Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 11



  1. #1
    Forum Moderator PS3 News's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    27,656
    Sponsored Links

    Sony: Help Defend Video Gaming and Sign the Gamer Petition!

    Sponsored Links
    Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) President Hal Halpin has extended an invitation to video gamers to sign the [Register or Login to view links] to preserve video gaming in America.

    To quote: This winter, the game industry - developers, publishers, retailers, et al - will face the single biggest legal challenge that such entertainment, broadly, has ever been up against and in the Supreme Court of the United States (SCOTUS).

    The State of California had appealed the U.S. Ninth Circuit decision to strike down the so-called CA "video game violence" law in Schwarzenegger v EMA, which every court had done in every such "violent video game" case. But this time was different; For the first time, the U.S. Supreme Court agreed to review the case (via "accepting certiorari" aka "cert").

    To be blunt, none of us expected it and we were all taken back by the decision. Just 1% of cases filed are granted cert - one percent!

    At stake: gaming in America. Yes, you read that correctly.

    California State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco/San Mateo) is the former child psychologist who championed the "violent video game" bill from inception and is coordinating with California Attorney General, Jerry Brown (D-Oakland), and their legal team to muster forces representing the anti-game side.

    In the pro-games corner are trade associations which represent the corporations which make and sell games and other groups which have skin in the game, such as First Amendment rights organizations.

    Both sides have an impressive roster of academics, researchers and legal teams committed to a decisive win. Forget 800-pound gorillas; this is more like armies going to war. And the reason is simple: all legal precedent can go right out the window. The slate is cleaned.

    In the time since the Court's announcement there has been a lot of media coverage, both from the enthusiast outlets and the national press. A disturbing theme that you'd find too often in the consumer comments is one of apathy. Perhaps it arose from winning in each of the violence in video game cases.

    Maybe because, from our perspective, it's hard to wrap your head around the idea that we could lose - the logic seems pretty obvious. But this is the U.S. Supreme Court, the only court in our country where the Justices don't have to "follow the law" because they make the law that everyone else follows.

    And here's the rub, as industry executives will openly admit: a loss wouldn't just be limited to any one demographic, such as minors; or any one area, such as California; or even to any one art form, such as video games.

    It wouldn't solely change how games are merchandised and sold. Should the U.S. Supreme Court determine that games may not necessarily enjoy the same First Amendment protections as music and movies do now, it would be catastrophic and the implications for gaming and gamers, and entertainment consumers generally, widespread.

    Many states and legislators across the country will be watching the outcome of this case closely and are eager to see that there may be an opportunity to re-start their regulatory efforts. Developers are anxious because their rights as artists and creators may be substantially diminished.

    A loss would have a chilling effect on the medium as a whole - not limited to the United States. Other forms of media could quickly follow, with movies, music, books and all other previously protected First Amendment free speech on the block. Foreign governments often fashion and amend their own laws after SCOTUS decisions.

    Retailers and publishers, who presently employ a self-regulated ratings system (ESRB), not unlike movies, may be forced to comply with a regulatory environment, like alcohol, tobacco, and firearms.

    This case may significantly impact the rights of minors, as one of many First Amendment points to be debated will likely be whether minors have them or deserve to keep them. The age of majority is also inconsistent from state to state... The business, legal and cultural implications are mind-boggling.

    In most SCOTUS cases, the perspective of the citizens is represented by the politicians - who are presumed to be representing the will of the people. The industry and its trade organizations represent the business. The idea of abdicating our personal consumer representation to the political figures in this case was and is unfathomable.

    The Entertainment Consumers Association (ECA) is the non-profit membership organization which represents the rights of gamers in the U.S. and Canada. Our members pay an annual dues fee and in exchange receive advocacy representation, affinity benefits and discounts on games-related goods and services.

    We will be submitting a Friend of the Court document, called the consumer amicus brief, in support of the industry. That move, while it may appear obvious, is very uncommon. Similar membership organizations such as AAA or AARP are among the few that have the resources to bring such a document to bear.

    Additionally, ECA will be attaching a [Register or Login to view links], which any American of any age can sign on to. It simply, but emphatically, states:

    We, the undersigned American video game consumers, purchase, rent and play video games the way we do other entertainment content such as movies and music. We respectfully request that you hold that video games are indeed free speech, protected under the First Amendment, like other entertainment media.

    Petitions, historically, have not made or broken any SCOTUS cases; they have little legal bearing. The vast majority of what will determine whether we win or lose is predetermined.

    What a consumer amicus, and attached petition, will do is inform the justices, staff, clerks, historians, members of the Bar and Supreme Court press corps that consumers, in this case, are represented by consumers - not politicians.

    We will be showing that the will of the people is present, is not "covered" by a few select elected officials, and that we are making our case via the consumer amicus and also backing it up with the convictions of petition signatories.

    A petition that is viewed as successful may or may not be impactful, but one that is not successful could in fact harm the case. Maybe the amicus and petition will only change the game by one percent. Maybe it'll be the same long odds that led to it being heard in the first place.

    If you care about gaming and your rights, please, consider signing the petition.

    Sony: Help Defend Video Gaming and Sign the Gamer Petition!

    More PlayStation 3 News...

  2. #2
    Senior Member ekrboi's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2009
    Posts
    78
    Sponsored Links

    Exclamation

    Sponsored Links
    WTF.. sometimes it makes me sick that i'm an american.. California State Senator Leland Yee can go eff himself.. if u dont like video games dont play them or let your kids play them (and let them hate you too).. but dont go screw it up for everyone else.. there are already laws in place to keep minors from obtaining so-called "violent" games.

    why not work on making those laws work better.. in my days ive been carded and seen other carded for video games.. either someone isnt doing their job or the parents are getting these games for their kids in which case i believe thats their right.

    Now i may be wrong i have had a few beers at this point and may have misread.. but it seems like they want to be able to regulate what developers could do with their video games and other media. sounds a little Nazi if you ask me..

  3. #3
    Registered User xUb3rn00dlEx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Posts
    174
    Sponsored Links
    Sponsored Links
    And yet again we see our rights diminish ever more, slowly, yet surely... I call for a revolution. This country lost it's purpose, which was that it was founded as a rebellion against exactly these practices! I SIGN!

  4. #4
    Junior Member Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,280
    Typical US as they want to ruin everything that is good in life, how about movies there is violence in them and you don't see them up in arms about that.

    They should just move all the production plants and game makers out of the US and setup else where as the US is just trying to run the world besides this as they are pressuring our govt. about this retarded copyright law which if it goes through won't allow us to make a copy of a original we bought which is total crap.

    Not sure were these airheads come up with such stupid things about gaming as everyone should know it is not real and just a video game that should be enjoyed but with the young moron generation we have now a days that play the game and spin out afterwards is they have the problem not the video game.

    You never seen this kinda crap when i was young and video games were first out as it was enjoyable, but now a days as soon as something is violent they want to blame something, they might as well take violence out of movies or don't make movies and take off all the violence we see on tv and see what we have left in the end which is basically nothing in the end then.

    I actually feel sorry for you good Americans as your country is really raking you people over the coals and this is just another moron move by these authorities on this who have no life but to see how they can mess up things.

    Well i have said enough i guess and hope this will not fly as this can ruin video gaming in a sense for senseless morons and these kids that flip out on video games shouldn't even be playing them if this is all they do and will wreck it for the rest of us good gamers..well that was my 2 cents worth on this subject.
    Last edited by Starlight; 07-16-2010 at 12:06 AM

  5. #5
    Senior Member inginear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Posts
    355
    i agree with you. however we are in this position here in the states because of so called parents. pretty much every child born from 1990 to the present has parents that are only interested in themselves and their facebook friends and twitter followers.

    if parents actually interacted and spent time raising their kids instead of letting television and games do it then we wouldn't have this problem.

    i'm sure there are some parents that are the exception and raise their kids themselves, but with the number of big lawsuits against "objectionable" material in games and media those parents would be a small minority.

  6. #6
    Registered User xxLindenxx's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    Posts
    137
    How stupid, parents shouldn't even be buying their kids video games that say 16 + on the box..The best way to actually counter this is to make publicity with the effects of violent video games on kids instead of banning violence of games all at once.

  7. #7
    Junior Member Starlight's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2005
    Posts
    5,280
    Quote Originally Posted by inginear View Post
    i agree with you. however we are in this position here in the states because of so called parents. pretty much every child born from 1990 to the present has parents that are only interested in themselves and their facebook friends and twitter followers.

    if parents actually interacted and spent time raising their kids instead of letting television and games do it then we wouldn't have this problem.

    i'm sure there are some parents that are the exception and raise their kids themselves, but with the number of big lawsuits against "objectionable" material in games and media those parents would be a small minority.
    In most cases yes the parents should have spent time up bringing their children, but i have seen good raised kids go bad as a lot of the little circle of friends they have will make them change or they won't be allowed to hang with them, not saying all of them but i have seen my share already and if they are not with the so called "in crowd" then you are not part of that group unless they change and start acting like them and this is where another problem lies.

    So just besides the parents not taking the time to interact with the children, when they go to school this other problem arises as mentioned above.

    Also kids will use the if you touch me i will go to welfare and report abuse and i know many people up here who's kids do exactly that and they do what they want and the parents are basically powerless, the law on that has to be changed forsure, not sure how many countries have this type of law about the up bring of your children and you cannot touch them in that manner, i think how will they learn as i don't mean beat them but a tap across the behind didn't hurt anybody and if you cannot even do that..why have kids for then.

    Anyhow i hope that children may have a better understanding of things as it is their future that they are molding and if gaming etc is vanished then they have no one else to blame but themselfs and hopefully parents will get a wake up call to try and help their children to grow up to be responsible young adults as they could end up doing the same thing to their children by not being there for them.

  8. #8
    Registered User chomerly's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2010
    Posts
    5
    I'll sign it even though i'm from the UK. It's a bit rich that a former actor who is now the governor of California wants to ban violence in video games when he made a name for himself in films that practically guaranteed violence if he was in it.
    Isn't that what made him rich?

    Not to mention the royalties he would have gotten from video games that featured him in it or on the cover.

    Shame on you Mr Schwarzenegger for doing a U-turn on a franchise that helped make you as rich as you are. Let's hope you do the same for the film industry too. You can't have it both ways.

    Films are more responsible for violence in society than in games. People can identify with films as there are real people in the films, regardless of they're acting. At least with games people can differentiate between what is gaming and what is real life.

    I have no doubt that you won't even mention films as a medium that needs to be looked at as when your political career takes a nose dive, it will be the on place that you'll return to. And no doubt that the violence in your films will return with it.

  9. #9
    Contributor BALLISTIKAL's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2010
    Posts
    19
    I don't live in America, nor do I approve anything Sony approves anymore. Should I sign it?

  10. #10
    Contributor mateuszss's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Posts
    17
    Its a little strange for me that Schwarzeneger aggre with that reform, most movies with him are very violent so he is hipocrite. I think im gonna sing this too, even that im from Poland.

    I think what with terminator game, he would delete violence from this game too? Its the most popular violent movie with him and the game is violent too.
    Last edited by mateuszss; 07-16-2010 at 07:08 PM Reason: new idea

 

Sponsored Links
Page 1 of 2 12 LastLast
Affiliates - Contact Us - PS3 Downloads - Privacy Statement - Site Rules - Top - © 2014 PlayStation 3 News