Parents Television Council Assails Federal Court Ruling on California Video Game Law; Urges SCOTUS Appeal

As GamePolitics reported on Friday, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court has upheld a lower court’s ruling that California’s 2005 video law is unconstitutional.

The Parents Television Council has now weighed in on the decision. The Los Angeles-based watchdog group criticized the 9th Circuit’s ruling and called upon PTC members to support State Sen. Leland Yee’s call for an appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court.

In a press release, PTC President Tim Winter (left) said:

Let’s be clear on what – exactly – is going on here: The video game industry has established a policy to ‘protect’ children from a harmful product, yet they file lawsuit after lawsuit to oppose any enforcement of that same policy… The only motivation for the industry to sue is to keep collecting blood money from kids who aren’t supposed to be able to buy these games without their parents present at the time of purchase.

There are very responsible retailers out there – Wal-Mart and Game Stop come to mind – who take their obligation not to sell these games to kids very seriously.  Yet industry representatives claim this law is unfairly biased against them… If the industry actually followed its own rules, then this law would have absolutely no financial impact… 

Shockingly, the Court’s ruling claims that there isn’t enough research to support that children are affected by video game violence.  Yet countless independent studies confirm what most parents instinctively know to be true: repeated exposure to graphic sexual, violent and profanity-laced video games has a harmful and long-term effect on children…
This federal court decision is a disgrace and should be of great concern to all parents – not just in California but across our nation.  We applaud State Sen. Yee’s efforts to see that this decision goes to the U.S. Supreme Court…

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

82 comments

  1. 0
    Navi says:

    If theres anything GW Bush has taught us, its that repeat a lie often enough and you will find people dumb enough to believe it.  Forutnatly for us, many of these dumb people never see there cases go to the Supreeme Court. 

    Sorry Jack

  2. 0
    Duffy says:

    Honestly, while there may be some impact, it would be negligible overall. The majority of stores already card for games, what is going to change? Will parents magically start paying attention to what they buy their kids?

     

    I doubt it.

  3. 0
    Solipsis says:

    Can we stop ranting about the religious right for a minute? There are lots of pro-censorship politicians on both sides of the aisle.

    Look at Tipper Gore’s campaign to restrict music sales…. Hillary Clinton and notorious flip-flopper Lieberman have both been game industry critics in the past too, and it’s ridiculous to call any of them members of the religious right.

    This site gets ridiculous sometimes. As valuable as I find the news it’s tiring to read the same old rants in the comments day after day.

  4. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    ”and that there are no less restrictive alternatives that would further the Act….”

    lol like y’know age ratings on games to help parents avoid buying these games for kids … *oh snap*

    Why cant you become the head of the PTC, then you could make sensible decisions for the jackasses. lol.

    lol. (nice legal analysis for the noobs like me btw!! – cheers!)

     

  5. 0
    Sai says:

    Hey! How about the kids who buy these games with a consenting parent present? How come people like this never consider this scenario? If you’ve ever worked in retail where they sell video games, you know this happens all the time.

    And it is retailers, not the industry, repsonsible for not selling the games to underaged kids. How can you possibly claim they’re deliberately out to make money off kids with mature rated games? They don’t even aim the advertising at kids or play them on kids networks, unlike, you know, toy commercials for toys based on PG-13 and R-rated movies.

  6. 0
    gamegod25 says:

    "blood money"? *roll* oh geez here we go again

    Let’s try to keep some perspective here, they’re just games alright. Those independant studies are all speculative at best, hitting with a whiffle bat or blowing an air horn is hardly the same thing as picking up a gun and shooting someone.

  7. 0
    digdug says:

    I dont think this law stands a chance in the supreme court. The liberals would vote against it on free speech grounds, and the conservatives would to allow state courts to decide it as they see fit.

    I doubt theyd even take the case.

    If it passed the 9th Circuit though, and its the video game companies that appealed to the supreme court, then it’d be a closer call. My guess is it could be 5 to 4 to overturn the law, with the 5 liberals voting against the law and the 4 conservatives voting for it to allow states (because of “states rights”) to pass whatever laws they want.

  8. 0
    TBoneTony says:

    OH GOD!!!!

    When a federal court has stated their decision, it is allot like a referee/umpire stating their decision during a football match.

    Yet all these people from the PTC and Politicians like Yee do is just bitch and bitch about their fustrations yet they never really understand anything about what the fundermental reasons behind the 1st Admendment and the meaning of Freedom of Speech and Expression.

     

    You can’t fight against a referee/umpire who has already made their decision in a football match.

     

    Just shut up PTC and stop lying about the false statistics of Violent videogames and violence in real life. Or else you will only be hurting yourself when many parents just don’t listen to you anymore.

     

  9. 0
    gamadaya says:

    Let’s be clear on what-exactly-is going on here. You’re a bunch of whiny little bitches who either were hit too much or too little when you were children. Now, you think that everyone should be raising their kids the same way you would raise yours, and you’re throwing a hissy fit about it. You then try to back up your claims by citing a bunch of irrelevent studies that have either been discredited or are in the process of being discredited. You also fail to realize that the video game industry has adopted self regulating policies because it doesn’t want to be regulated by the government. That is why they fought this bill so hard, you stupid, fucking morons.

    ———————————

    Internet troll > internet paladin

  10. 0
    NinjaJustice says:

    Clearly, these idiots didn’t bother to actually read the case.  The studies only went to whether California established that the law served a "compelling state interest," which is only one prong of the three-pronged strict-scrutiny test.  Even if the studies were totally legitimate, the law would still be unconstitutional:

    "Even if we assume that the State demonstrated a compelling interest in preventing psychological or neurological harm, the State still has the burden of demonstrating that the Act is narrowly tailored to further that interest, and that there are no less restrictive alternatives that would further the Act….The State appears to be singularly focused on the ‘most effective’ way to further its goal, instead of the ‘least restrictive means,’ and has not shown why the less-restrictive means would be ineffective."

  11. 0
    Benji says:

    The most irritating thing about all of this, beyond the flaws in the PTC’s argument, is that I always thought an appeal meant you thought there was an error in the current judgment – a judge made a controversial ruling, excluded some evidence, reversed a precedent or previous judgment, whatever.  Judges are smart people with lots of education and experience and they don’t decide one way or another just for shits and giggles.  There was a logic to the decision, and if you’re going to say it should be appealled I thought it was good to say WHY it should be reconsidered, beyond just the simple "I think this decision is stupid and the judges should be ashamed of themselves."

  12. 0
    SS says:

    im so glad one of my best friends turned 17.  he was already driving me around everywhere, now he gets the added responsiblity of buying video games for me!

     

    Edit-

    shoot i just realized that statement was extremely random and off topic.

  13. 0
    NovaBlack says:

    ”The only motivation for the industry to sue is to keep collecting blood money from kids who aren’t supposed to be able to buy these games without their parents present at the time of purchase.

    There are very responsible retailers out there – Wal-Mart and Game Stop come to mind – who take their obligation not to sell these games to kids very seriously.  Yet industry representatives claim this law is unfairly biased against them… If the industry actually followed its own rules, then this law would have absolutely no financial impact…  ”
     

    Right.. so the retailers are super responsible..

    and its ‘the games industry’ that wants to sell these to kids to make money…

    riiight… so how do ‘the games industry’ sell the games to these kids then, since the vast majority of sales are 100% through these ‘super responsible’ retailers ?

    ohh yeah.. thats right..  ‘the games industry’ actually just sells to the retailers and then couldnt really care less what happens after that. Who is it who sells to kids then? Who is it who hands over the game to little Johnny and takes his money? Who is it who actually has a contract of sale? Oh yeah thats right those ‘super responsible’ retailers.

     

    Geez. Try and at least logically think through an argument before saying it.

     

     

  14. 0
    PHX Corp says:

    I believe the superbowl halftime show incident was a deliberatae set up by the PTC to fine Television stations for that incident

    Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

  15. 0
    babbleon says:

    I honestly believe that we should educate both parents and children about the consoles and the parental controls. They are there for a reason. Paren’t should be more involved.

    By asking for this law to be passed, the PTC is saying, "Hey! We’re too lazy to try and control our kids. We don’t know how and we don’t want to know."

  16. 0
    ZippyDSMlee says:

    You can’t legislate semi normal thought without re writing the foundation of our laws.

    NEXT!

     


    Gore,Violence,Sexauilty,Fear,Emotion these are but modes of transportation of story and thought, to take them from society you create a society of children and nannys, since adults are not required.


    http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com

  17. 0
    Zerodash says:

    The real threat to the industry isn’t so much profits (the vast majority of the consumer is over 30), but rather the actual loss of ADULT consumers.

    Look at the American Comicbook industry.  The moral panic that resulted in the Comics Code (a driect result of government pressure) caused the comicbook medium to be relegated to only kid-friendly content and nothing else.  Look at how juvinile American comics are compared to those of Europe of Japan.  That industry would be much bigger today if it were allowed to cater to an adult audience.  Bigger audience = more $$.

    If the government deems games unprotected speech, then mature videogames become little more than pornography.  That opens the path to game content being outright regulated and banned resulting in a diminished medium that only can safely make games for children.

    This is the life or death of the interactive entertainment medium at stake here…

  18. 0
    MasterAssassin says:

    What countless independent studies you moron? Please give some or shut up. Also what about the studies that have shown the exact opposite or are those not relevent because they don’t agree with your point of view. The PTC is simply mad because they’ve been loosing influence since the Janet Jackson superbowl scandal. People are seeing them for what they are, which is a group of radical moralilty police fascists that want to censor everything that they don’t like. Also are these idiots even aware that there are parental controls on all consoles now?  Also this group of misinformed failures of parents also doesn’t seem to get the whole point of the ESRB. The ESRB ratings do not indicate if a game is harmful to kids, they are simply a guide to warn parents about the content of some games and let them make the descision. M does not mean harmful to minors. Grand Theft Auto IV is not the same as Left 4 Dead or Gears of War. Now the PTC has sunk to a level of stupidity that I originally thought only Jack Thompson was capable of but then again the PTC was only slightly above him in first place. This court ruling is a victory for the first amendment and tickles me pink to see the PTC having such a negative reaction to it.

  19. 0
    JessJames says:

    Ya know, I’m a pretty positive person, and I try at least to see both sides of an argument.

    However, recently whenever the subject of gaming hits the media it is constantly accompanied by the voices of people who (apparently) think and say things which, to me at least, are obviously nonsense.

    What frustrates me is how clearly and obviously wrong these people are… I want to slap them a bit, shake them a bit, and scream "HOW CAN YOU SAY THESE THINGS – ITS OBVIOUSLY NOT TRUE – HOW CAN YOU NOT SEE IT?" right in their faces.

    It would annoy me generally, but given the fact that these attacks are made against something I have a personal passion for it makes me seriously angry.

    As far as I can see the salient points are these :

    – Each modern console has parental controls which essentially prevent age restricted materials from even being played on them. It’s easy, it works, and it solves the problem.

    – Games with higher age ratings shouldn’t really be played by young children. If your concerned that they might be then ask how they’re getting them (if they are indeed playing them) and pay no attention whatsoever to the fact that they exist, and are available for purchase – it’s not relevant.

    – There has yet to be a medical/scientific study which shows, or even strongly suggests that there is a causal (and not correllatory) relationship between violent media and violent behaviour.

    – If a child is being exposed to media which their parents (cos this is really the only opinion that matters – AT ALL) deem inappropriate, then it is the parents responsibility to ensure that this exposure stops. AND NO ONE ELSES. AT ALL. EVER.

    – Any attempt to restrict the creation and availability of ANY media, containing ANY material that does not harm a real person in any tangible way is utterly without merit, without concience and in this country is un-constitutional.

    While I’m aware that there’s a possibility for me being intollerant saying this – I do not understand how this can be argued against by anyone with any rationality at all.

    Therefore I conclude that any argument which does not acknowledge the above can be considered irrational and therefore safely ignored.

    :)

  20. 0
    Elestia says:

    Or because most video game laws that have been put through the legislature does not have any teeth to it. Mandatory rating on the box, or no selling to minors of violent games. The video game industry doesn’t fight it because it won’t have a dramatic impact on their business, but they sometimes fail to see the externalities of such bills. Just having such regulations tarnishes video games as a whole, and colors the bias of many people in general. Only lately, have they actually started to wise up and make a stand against ludicrous video gaming laws.

  21. 0
    Elestia says:

    It doesn’t help having the blind leading the blind either. People put too much faith in the higher powers and believe whatever studies or people in authority will say without scrutiny.

  22. 0
    Sukasa says:

    I would support it…if Sen Lee was paying for it.  Instead a state that is having huge financial troubles is going to have to pocket it.  Though, I agree it would be nice if it goes and hopefully Sen Lee and these type laws are finally brought to a close.

  23. 0
    Cecil475 says:

    "Let’s be clear on what – exactly – is going on here: The video game industry has established a policy to ‘protect’ children from a harmful product, yet they file lawsuit after lawsuit to oppose any enforcement of that same policy…"

    Uh yeah, but you are talking about GOVERMENT enforcement. Not PARENTAL enforcement. The ESRB is availible to help make informed choices in what games parents should buy for their children, as long as the parents are willing to take the time and read the damn labels. It they CAN’T work if they refuse to USE it.

    No GOVERMENT needed

    and no parent bs WATCHDOG group needed either

    Just plain, old fashioned goddamn COMMON SENSE!!!

     – Warren Lewis

  24. 0
    vellocet says:

    Although… I do support Sen Yee’s call for a SCOTUS appeal.

    Let’s put this to rest once and for all… best way to silence them… well, on this subject anyway.

  25. 0
    JDKJ says:

    Or could it be that the reason the game industry challenges these laws in court is because the effect of such laws, if allowed to stand, would be a decrease in videogame sales and, therefore, a decrease in the game industry’s profits? Ya think? 

  26. 0
    Zerodash says:

    The games industry (ESA) has been and seemingly continues to be run by spineless wimps.  Vince McMahon, love him or hate him, at least had the testicular fortitude to go after the PTC for their lies.

    Would Mr. Gallagher ever dream of going Vince McMachon on the PTC?  Doubtful.   The ESA seems to think mod chips are a bigger threat to the industry than groups intent on regulating/banning their wares.

  27. 0
    iceman654 says:

    The reason the game industry challenges these laws in court is because they are in favor of self-regulation rather than heavy handed, government mandated regulation which in the end is detrimental to finances, logistics etc. But the thing is, where does the government regulation stop once it’s been implemented for one thing? Unlike alcohol video games are not scientifically, definitively proven to have drastic affects on brain function.

    Take it from an Australian, you DON’T want the government regulating your games. You end up with a few politicians in an office deciding what millions of people can play and when they ban something, you have absolutely no say what so ever. The government continues to NOT listen to the people and shove it’s own agenda along without any remorse.

  28. 0
    axiomatic says:

    I am in fact more concerned that my child might currently be taught their school lessons from a member of the PTC than I am of them being influenced by games. When my kids play games, I’m right there with them, explaining whatever imagery they might see in the game so they know its for fun and not real.

    The religious right scares the shit out of me. That crazy look when they get on that soapbox…. yeah its unsettling… I know.

  29. 0
    Sukasa says:

    "People are stupid; given proper motivation, almost anyone will believe almost anything. Because people are stupid, they will believe a lie because they want to believe it’s true, or because they are afraid it might be true. People’s heads are full of knowledge, facts, and beliefs, and most of it is false, yet they think it all true. People are stupid; they can only rarely tell the difference between a lie and the truth, and yet they are confident they can, and so are all the easier to fool."

     

    That pretty much summons up people as a whole sadly.

  30. 0
    Erik says:

    So let me see if I can get at the jist of what the PTC are saying:

    "How dare the video game industry refuse to give up our basic freedoms for some perceived saftey!  Benjamin Franklin said that it is wicked awesome to do so!"

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  31. 0
    GRIZZAM PRIME says:

    Why do so many people fail to understand the point of the ESRB? It was designed to provide information to help parents decide for themselves what they choose to let their children play. It was never intented to be a legal whoop-ass stick.

    It is also recommended that you don’t reference studies you clearly haven’t read.

  32. 0
    Mattsworkname says:

    You know, i say it over and over and over and over. Why doesn’t the industry law some legal smack down on the PTC the way the WWF did. This BS needs to stop, and apparently, the only thing the PTC understands is having to pay out money for being self serving dirtbags.

    I hope the industry sues them and tells them to either shut up or Pay up.

     

    Yukimura is still here "Honor, that is what matters, isn’t it? " Yukimura Sanada, from Samurai warriors 2

  33. 0
    Doom90885 says:

    These pigs are such hypocrites and the people like them. They want their freedoms and rights respected and protected but heaven forbid if they grant that same respect to everyone else.

  34. 0
    babbleon says:

    The PTC assumes that the because the law they want to enact is "intended" to protect the children, that alone should be enough to enact a law. It’s sad really. They’re blinded by this so-called noble cause to protect the children that they are willing to sacrifice certain liberties.

    None of the studies they mention prove a causal link between playing violent video games and actual violent behavior.

    "repeated exposure to graphic sexual, violent and profanity-laced video games has a harmful and long-term effect on children.  Researchers at the Indiana University School of Medicine – and countless other objective studies – have  proven violent video games do have an effect by using functional magnetic resonance imaging technology to observe which areas of the brain are stimulated when a subject plays violent video games."

    It’s odd. They say it has a harmful negative long-term effect on children. This is obviously misleading. And what are these harmful effects? It’s so vague, it’s almost funny. Here’s their argument in a nutshell:

    Them: Violent Video games are bad.

    Us: Why?

    Them: Isn’t it obvious?

    Us: No

    Them: It harmfully affects them.

    Us: How?

    Them: You see this brain scan. Yea. This area was stimulated. It should never be stimulated. It’s a bad part of the brain. Good children never have this area stimulated…

    I wonder if that part of the brain gets stimulated when we play, say… pokemon. Or Zelda, Mario, Sonic, Mario Kart. They all involve some sort of violent attack behavior against another. What about fighting games such as street fighter, Smash Bros, or even Tekken. I wonder if they’ve done a study on that.

  35. 0
    Sukasa says:

    The bigger question should be "How are "kids" getting money to buy these games much less get to the store to buy them?" (short of being 16 + and has a car/job)

    If we are trying to "protect the children", should we not also rate the bible, koran, etc as "AO" since they have been used to support violence and other crimes, so that kids are not corrupted?

  36. 0
    Sukasa says:

    "edit: and BTW, why so many anti game activists look so butt-ugly?"

    Because they want everyone else to suffer like they have?

    Personally I think the PTC and other like minded groups would be better off making there own cable or satellite TV(maybe even interent) business which only shows what they consider "Acceptable".  If the PTC thinks shows like Heroes(or other "red" grade shows) is bad, that is fine, but making it so others who do like the show suffer by trying to get it banned is not right.  You could call it the Christian Satellite Network (CSN), where only "Christian famially approved shows are aired and you have the Christian Internet Network (CIN) where such offensive websites such as pornography, witchcraft and anything else considered not moral and not family friend is blocked.

  37. 0
    dsparil says:

    The whole "Think of the children" BS is little more than a ploy. They’re just using it as a front to force their beliefs down everyone’s throats.

    edit: and BTW, why so many anti game activists look so butt-ugly?

     

  38. 0
    NinjaJustice says:

    Standing’s no problem because the video game industry isn’t suing on behalf of children; it’s suing on its own behalf, since its interests are directly affected by the statute at issue.

  39. 0
    Navi says:

    "How does the video game industry even have legal standing to sue on behalf of children who wouldn’t be able to pay them for the very products they admit that kids shouldn’t be buying?"

    So, if the children dont have the money to pay for games they are not supose to be buying, then how are they still buying it?  I can only think of 3 sienarios that this could take place.

    1) Some nice stranger is giving away the video games for free to kids.

    2) Kids are getting there parents to buy the games for them, making such a law moot

    3) Kids are stealing the games from the stores, which by-passes the registers.

    I dont think this lady really thinks her arguments through.

    I think what they really need to do is pass a law banning parents from having children unless they are willing to sign a legal document stating they will take care of there kids and spend time with them, and not let them get away with everything.

  40. 0
    Tomatoisjp says:

    There are very responsible retailers out there – Wal-Mart and Game Stop come to mind – who take their obligation not to sell these games to kids very seriously.

     

    Psst… does anyone want to tell them Wal-Mart sold M-rated games in 2 out of 3 instances in a test done just last year? Failing to enforce rules 67% of the time does not indicate a very serious obligation, methinks.

    Then again, given some of the rest of the article (Blood money? Even buying some of the arguments that have been made against video games in terms of increased violence, since when did selling one M-rated game to a minor jump to the level of ZOMG MURDERER?) I suppose that’s probably one of the more accurate places. At least he got the fact that Gamestop does put a stop to most of it, which is something other people tend to forget.

  41. 0
    BrandonL337 says:

    looks like a zombie

    There have always been motherf*ckers, there will always be motherf*ckers, but what we can’t do is let them control our motherf*cking lives. -John Oliver, December 1st, 2008

  42. 0
    babbleon says:

    How about this. If the PTC really, and I mean reaaaaly wants to prevent children from playing violent video games, then they should make it their goal to let every parent know that the xbox 360, playstation 3, or even the Nintendo Wii has parental controls and how those parents can implement them. Seriously, even if a Kid just so happens to buy a "extremely violent" video game, they can’t play it. It’s a waste of money and therefore, not even worth trying to buy. If they really want to hurt the big gaming industry, then making it damn near impossible to play a violent video game is probably a good way to go about it.

    Don’t let the parents be helpless. Empower them.

  43. 0
    TK n Happy Ness says:

    The fights were good in the late 90s before the FCC had them tone down the show.

    When Jack Thompson runs his mouth, does anyone really care what he has to say anymore?

  44. 0
    PHX Corp says:

    I doubt it will Happen(CA appeals the ruling to the supreme court) due tho the financial state that they’re in

    Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

  45. 0
    TK n Happy Ness says:

    They could appeal it, but they’ll only get the same response everybody else has given them: It’s unconstitutional.

    When Jack Thompson runs his mouth, does anyone really care what he has to say anymore?

  46. 0
    Michael Chandra says:

    Spot the contradiction!

    "Nearly all of the research is based on correlation, not evidence of causation, and most of the studies suffer from significant, admitted flaws in methodology."
    "Yet countless independent studies confirm what most parents instinctively know to be true: repeated exposure to graphic sexual, violent and profanity-laced video games has a harmful and long-term effect on children…"

    I have to say, I find the explanation of the ninth district far more reasonable. Correlation, admitted flaws. If you’re going to say their reasoning is incorrect, explain WHY! Saying it is won’t get you anywhere, the yes-no game is for kids.

    Oooooooh! So that’s why! To protect kids they act like them!

  47. 0
    MasterAssassin says:

    BTW if Govenor Schwartzenager appeals this then I’m going to lose all respect for him. California is almost bankrupt and it’s simply insulting the people of CA to spend money appealing this crap when the state is on the verge of bankruptcy. It was already insulting enough to appeal this crap. I already lost some respect for Schwartzenager when he so hypocritically signed and supported this law when he made millions of dollar off violent action movies, many which had kids and teens as a huge part of the audience.

  48. 0
    Spartan says:


    As far as I’m concerned the PTC and its ilk can collectively go fuck themselves.

     

     

    —————————————————————————

    "The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" – Herodotus

  49. 0
    Spartan says:

    Took the words out of my mouth!

    —————————————————————————

    "The most difficult pain a man can suffer is to have knowledge of much and power over little" – Herodotus

  50. 0
    vellocet says:

    Secondly, it protects the rights of Adult players who want to play games that would not be made if they could not get funding because "only E for everyone" games sell (just one example)

    This is exactly what the First Amendment is about.  By restricting speech in any way, you censor it.

  51. 0
    Baruch_S says:

    Let’s be clear on what – exactly – is going on here: The video game industry has established a policy to ‘protect’ children from a harmful product, yet they file lawsuit after lawsuit to oppose any enforcement of that same policy.

    Let’s be informed about what we’re talking about. The video game industry has established a set of guidelines to allow parents to better judge what their kids should and should not be playing, yet morons like the PTC seem to think that suggestions carry some sort of legal weight and that the industry and retailers are responsible for making sure children can’t buy things that aren’t suggested for them. It’s not their problem if parents can’t control their children and keep track of what they buy.

  52. 0
    Baruch_S says:

    Do you happen to know anything about the Christian right? They’re not a bunch of woman-beating chauvinists; those are only the crazy ones who go start their own little communes with an entire arsenal stashed in the basement (and even here I’m making an unfair generalization; some of those commune people could be completely sane and rather nice). You’re talking about the extreme right loonies; they’re no better representatives of Christianity and the moderate Christian right than Islamic terrorists are of Islam.

    If you want a reason for divorce rates, try this one out. What you have in Christianity today is a conflict between Christian values and secular ideas about sex. People get into irresponsible physical relationships, and she gets pregnant. Since they’re Christians (or at least claim to be), they’ll likely get married. But, since they’re also probably not ready for children or being married, the marriage ends in divorce. The higher divorce rate could stem from women who would otherwise be single mothers getting married because they feel it’s the right thing to do and then realizing that they’re really not compatible with the child’s father.

    No matter which option they pick, the women generally aren’t ostracized. After the initial rumor flurry gets around all the church’s old ladies, the church settles back down and doesn’t make a big deal out of the divorced/single mother. Heck, there’s a good chance they’ll work out some way for her to get help from the rest of the church such as taking hand-me-down baby stuff that she’d otherwise have trouble affording.

    I have friends whose parents have gone through this exact sequence of events, and I’ve never met any Christian couple who got divorced because the woman felt like she was being oppressed. Don’t jump to stupid conclusions like "Christians have high divorce rates because they’re chauvinists" without some sort of proof that actually represents more than a small group of nuts.

  53. 0
    BearDogg-X says:

    The PTC should grow up and get a life and quit lying to America. Those studies were proven wrong time and again. Deal with it.

    The Supreme Court will not even hear the case if California is stupid enough to appeal, because the courts have unanimously rejected these laws as unconstitutional time and again.

    Vince McMahon whipped their ass in court when he confronted them with the truth. It’s long overdue that the ESA took them to court.

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.


    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  54. 0
    Wolvenmoon says:

    So..they’re giving up on over the top programming on children’s networks (Baby looney toons in the morning, dethklok at night) and targeting video games that are undeniably opt in in a way you can’t accidentally play a video game.

    That’s great. If more people tried to go for the middle ground, heck, even just requiring ESRB content descriptors to be legible on the front of the box instead of only visible on the back, then maybe we could get something done.

    A lot of these people would blame condoms for the huge amounts of teenagers catching STDs if they could. Instead of discouraging 13 year olds from having sex, they’re blaming the condom when the thirteen year olds do.

  55. 0
    Neeneko says:

    Heh.

    One of the reasons the divorce rate is so high is it is getting harder and harder for the christian right communities to hide the abuse that goes on in thier households.

    Over the decades the community has tried to shift the image of abuse to anyone other then themselves… gays, polys, feminists, satanists, atheists, etc etc etc.  This has made it easier to write off thier own abuse.  I’ve honestly heard pedophiles who have been raping their own daughters claim with a strait (and possibly even they believe it) face that they are not pedophiles because they are not gay, and poof, everyone ignores the incest and rape going on.

    So today, you’ve got a male population in the community that doesn’t want to change, but a female population that is starting to figure out that they don’t HAVE to sit and take it (even though divorce often results in the woman being ostrasized) and thus have other options.

  56. 0
    LAG - Law Abiding Gamer says:

    Amen (I’ll probably be struck by lightning for using that word).

    I’m a California resident, and it really pisses me off that in a state with a $42 BILLION deficit (that’s Billion, with a "B") where education cost-cutting is rampant, Yee and the PTC feel that their claptrap should take priority over sending our kids to decent schools.  I’m so mad about this I could crap a copy of GTA-4.  I’ve written Yee and told him something similar (in a much more politic voice, for sure).  Have yet to hear back.

    I’ve seen a few references to higher divorce rates among the uber-religious.  What blows me away is how ready the ultra-right-wing-religious-"save-the-kids!"-mouthpieces are to lie and deceive as a means to their ends.  I’m not a religious guy, but among things that most religions decry, isn’t lying one of the real bad ones? 

    What blows me away more is how many people actually believe their lies.

    ***Homicide-free video gaming since 1972!***

  57. 0
    ConstantNeophyte says:

    A brilliant dissection of their flawed argument.

    Unfortunately, I have come to the rather pessimistic conclusion that even if they do realise that they don’t have a coherent argument they still wouldn’t care as they have a vested interest opposing this supposed "moral backslide" etc.

    I’m seriously considering starting my own decency campaign and charging people for joining. I will simply check GP and game news sites to see which games are popular, stage large internet protests about said games, rack up page views and paste the pages with ads. Hell, throw in a donation link to help "fight against immorality" and I’ll be set.

    Maybe I’ll be able to buy a new 360 to replace my rrod’d one since MS seem to have lost it somewhere in the post (seriously, how long does it take them to repair them? Not to put to fine a point on it, but you think they’d have had a bit of pratice by now!).

    -ConstantNeophyte: always the newb, ALWAYS.

  58. 0
    Kincyr says:

    "How does the video game industry even have legal standing to sue on behalf of children who wouldn’t be able to pay them for the very products they admit that kids shouldn’t be buying?"

    Huh?  If kids aren’t able to pay for them, why is this even an issue?  Why are you supporting legislation preventing kids from doing something you claim they can’t do anyway?

    that alone FTW

    岩「…Where do masochists go when they die?」

  59. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    "The video game industry has established a policy to ‘protect’ children from a harmful product…"

    No it has not.  Please try to understand what the ESRB ratings are actually meant to do.  Here, this might help.

    "And they base their legal argument on a child’s ‘right’ to purchase the very product that they openly admit should not be purchased by a child."

    Sorry PTC but like it or not, children have rights too.  The industry isn’t saying children shouldn’t purchase these products.  It’s saying that games with an M-rating are not recommended for children under 17.

    "…the result is a tragic consequence on America’s children."

    Care to elaborate?

    "How does the video game industry even have legal standing to sue on behalf of children who wouldn’t be able to pay them for the very products they admit that kids shouldn’t be buying?"

    Huh?  If kids aren’t able to pay for them, why is this even an issue?  Why are you supporting legislation preventing kids from doing something you claim they can’t do anyway?

    "The only motivation for the industry to sue is to keep collecting blood money from kids…"

    Blood money?  Care to elaborate?

    "If the industry actually followed its own rules, then this law would have absolutely no financial impact whatsoever on the industry."

    I take it you’ve never heard of the concept of chilled speech?

    "…repeated exposure to graphic sexual, violent and profanity-laced video games has a harmful and long-term effect on children."

    No it doesn’t.  Try reading the actual studies.  As for the Indiana study,

    it used an MRI to look at the difference between the brains of normal kids and kids with disruptive behavioral disorders when playing violent games.  The conclusion: kids with DBD have less activity going on in the frontal lobe (decision-making and behavioral control) then kids without DBD when playing violent games.  The games used?  A racing game and a James Bond game.

    That in no way proves harm.

     

    Andrew Eisen

  60. 0
    Cecil475 says:

    "Shockingly, the Court’s ruling claims that there isn’t enough research to support that children are affected by video game violence.  Yet countless independent studies confirm what most parents instinctively know to be true: repeated exposure to graphic sexual, violent and profanity-laced video games has a harmful and long-term effect on children."

    Y’know, after the FTC came out with their findings that the PTC didn’t agree with, they made their own study, which had the results they wanted?

    Replace independent with PTC

    ‘Shockingly, the Court’s ruling claims that there isn’t enough research to support that children are affected by video game violence.  Yet countless PTC studies confirm what most parents instinctively know to be true: repeated exposure to graphic sexual, violent and profanity-laced video games has a harmful and long-term effect on children.’

    Makes sense, right?

     – Warren Lewis

  61. 0
    GoodRobotUs says:

    ‘Shockingly, the Court’s ruling claims that there isn’t enough research to support that children are affected by video game violence.  Yet countless independent studies confirm what most parents instinctively know to be true: repeated exposure to graphic sexual, violent and profanity-laced video games has a harmful and long-term effect on children.’

    Amazing, simply amazing, could they stretch that just a little further, possibly to include martians?

  62. 0
    KayleL says:

    We are not hypocrites. We don’t don’t want the landslide effect.  Also, how many of those countless independent studies hasn’t been disproved. Most of them are theoretical anyway. There like the study of dinosaurs are made of wood. Why? Because they are brown, and wood is brown, therefore, dinosaurs are made of wood.

  63. 0
    Geoff says:

    Oh jeez.  Kiss my ass PTC.  You coddle children too much and what do you get?  A neurotic adult unable to deal with the realties of the world.

    This whole "For the children!" crusade has screwed up a large portion of my generation. 

     

    Tea and cake or death! Tea and cake or death! Little Red Cook-book! Little Red Cook-book!

Leave a Reply