Quote:
Originally Posted by kapol
I don't really think comparing a form of media to a drug is really the best way to look at it.
|
I think you're missing my point. My point was that the game industry's arguments about how it would hurt their business are nonsense. Their claims about having to change their business model, change their sales policies or have to do restrictive or difficult geocoding are lies. The law specifies that violent titles must have a sticker identifying them as violent. For Wal-Mart, the difference between carding for an M-rated game and carding for an "18" game is functionally identical. Complete red herring. (vagueness is another issue entirely and the quote did not touch on it)
Quote:
Originally Posted by kapol
The drinking age nationwide is 21, and that's for anything that's considered an alcholoic beverage.
|
That's not a national law, believe it or not. Those are state laws. The federal government forced state legislatures to pass the 21-year minimum drinking limit by not giving them transportation funds if they did not. In any case, manufacturers have to deal with this sort of thing all the time. California's auto emissions standards have been tougher than the national standard's for a long time. Again, a red herring.
Your other points are fair, and I'm not arguing them. My problem was the idiotic paragraph by the Escapist I quoted.
I'm not defending the California law. As I said in my last response, I'd prefer the industry keeps control over its own monitoring activities rather than have a regulatory entity that will be controlled by people like Leland Yee.