California 2005 Video Game Law Ruled Unconstitutional

August 6, 2007 -

Read the ruling here

A federal district court judge has ruled California's 2005 video game law unconstitutional, ending a legal fight which lasted nearly two years.

The bill, championed by then-Assembly Speaker Leland Yee (D) was signed into law by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (left) on October 7th, 2005. The video game industry filed suit to block the law 10 days later.

Judge Ronald Whyte issued a preliminary injunction on December 22nd, blocking the California law from its planned effective date of January 1st, 2006. Since then, both sides have been waiting for Judge Whyte's final ruling. Today it has come.

A lot has happened since the suit was filed. The main plaintiff, the Video Software Dealers Association, no longer exists. The organization merged with the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association last year and is now known as the Entertainment Merchants Association, representing video game retailers and renters.

Doug Lowenstein, of course, is no longer with the video game publishers' association, the Entertainment Software Association, another plaintiff in the case. Mike Gallagher now heads the ESA. And Leland Yee moved from the California Assembly to the State Senate in November, 2006.

From Judge Whyte's ruling:
 

The evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, internet sites or other speech-related exposures.

Although some reputable professional individuals and organizations have expressed particular concern about the interactive nature of video games, there is no generally-accepted study that supports that concern. There has also been no detailed study to differentiate between the effects of violent videos on minors of different ages.

The court, although sympathetic to what the legislature sought to do by the Act, finds that the evidence does not establish the required nexus between the legislative concerns about the well-being of minors and the restrictions on speech required by the Act.

 

Comments

Friendly Awesome Super Exciting Time

But totally expected/10

That really took the judge a very, very long time. I don't think anyone here is surprised about the final ruling.

I don't understand. The law is clearly constitutional:

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, except in the case of interactive electronic simulations; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

I mean, it's right there.

In before lawyerman says this would have passed with him on board.

And, Mr Yee, if you see this, I certainly hope we don't see a repeat.

California, I have only three words for you...










Suck it, douchebags.

Nah, a certain lawyer we know would say that the court is in the pocket of the video game industry and then put on his tin foil hat.

Vote Shih Tzu for Comment of the Year 2007

As a senior, who in the past had to watch 'little' (mentally only)Arnold spend our tax payer money for unnecessary legal fees while I had to pinch pennies to pay for food and medication. I could have sworn that we, the tax payers had already made our feelings perfectly clear on this subject. When the courts haven't turned things around for him he hits the tax payer again by creating more legal expenses.

[...] California Game Law is Terminated [...]

[...] A win for video game fiends in California. [...]

luqjpx qjwvsgkh vmwaxkfuz iqrmzpcd hnds ucphbkz hpudlzxbm

[...] After Federal Judge Ronald Whyte, declared California’s Anti-Video Game Bill, AB1179, unconstitutional as it would have regulated video games, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger now will appeal the ruling and wants the law back. He is completely disregarding the Constitution, court rulings across the country, and the ESRB’s successful progress in educating parents on how to protect their children. [...]

[...] Source: GamePolitics.com [...]

[...] via GamePolitics.com [...]

Im surprised that we havent heard from the pious Jack Thompson on this. Aint no fun when the rabbits got the gun, huh??

Gamers: 8

Anti-First Amendment Idiots: ZIP!

=D

Ok, that was a bad comment, but you would think that they would have learned by now that they cant ban gaming =/

[...] Since the great “Hot Coffee” scandal of 2005 — when a sex minigame was discovered in the code of “Grand Theft Auto III: San Andreas” — legislators have redoubled efforts to save the children from violent videogames. Everyone from Hillary Clinton to California state senator Leland Yee has attempted to regulate the sale of violent games to minors. Most efforts have died horrible deaths thanks to this little thing we like to call the First Amendment. Just last month California’s 2005 videogame law (which would require violent game packages to be marked “adult only” and be plastered with a giant “18,” and it would fine retailers who sell games to minors up to $1,000) was ruled unconstitutional in federal district court. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will have none of that. On Wednesday he appealed the decision, stating, “We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultraviolent actions.” Of course, for every study that “proves” violent videogames cause violent behavior, there’s a study debunking it. Never mind that the Governator is hardly the best antiviolence role model for kids. [...]

[...] Since the great “Hot Coffee” scandal of 2005 — when a sex minigame was discovered in the code of “Grand Theft Auto III: San Andreas” — legislators have redoubled efforts to save the children from violent videogames. Everyone from Hillary Clinton to California state senator Leland Yee has attempted to regulate the sale of violent games to minors. Most efforts have died horrible deaths thanks to this little thing we like to call the First Amendment. Just last month California’s 2005 videogame law (which would require violent game packages to be marked “adult only” and be plastered with a giant “18,” and it would fine retailers who sell games to minors up to $1,000) was ruled unconstitutional in federal district court. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will have none of that. On Wednesday he appealed the decision, stating, “We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultraviolent actions.” Of course, for every study that “proves” violent videogames cause violent behavior, there’s a study debunking it. Never mind that the Governator is hardly the best antiviolence role model for kids. [...]

[...] Since the great “Hot Coffee” scandal of 2005 — when a sex minigame was discovered in the code of “Grand Theft Auto III: San Andreas” — legislators have redoubled efforts to save the children from violent videogames. Everyone from Hillary Clinton to California state senator Leland Yee has attempted to regulate the sale of violent games to minors. Most efforts have died horrible deaths thanks to this little thing we like to call the First Amendment. Just last month California’s 2005 videogame law (which would require violent game packages to be marked “adult only” and be plastered with a giant “18,” and it would fine retailers who sell games to minors up to $1,000) was ruled unconstitutional in federal district court. Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger will have none of that. On Wednesday he appealed the decision, stating, “We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultraviolent actions.” Of course, for every study that “proves” violent videogames cause violent behavior, there’s a study debunking it. Never mind that the Governator is hardly the best antiviolence role model for kids. [...]

I'm sorry, but I have to agree with the legislature on this one.
theyre not banning the sales of violent video games to everyone, just minors.
while I enjoy them personally, and as I know many people also do,
I do NOT like the idea of my neighbor's nine-year-old son getting his paws on a game like grand theft auto, where picking up a whore and then killing her is rewarded. We have laws preventing children from getting their hands on disgustingly graphic or morally bankrupt movies, there should be a similar law for games. While there is NO proof that violent games cause violence in your average Joe, there is DECADES worth of proof that graphic images and ideals CAN disrupt a YOUNG and naive mind. I myself became prone to beating people up after becoming addicted to "Ninja Turtles" at the age of six, which my mother put a stop to. While I do not think it fair to limit sales, we need to find some way to keep VERY young children, like my nine-year-old neighbor, from buying games along the lines I formerly described.

As I stated before, while stating that video games cause violence is total bullshit, we really should be upholding laws that prevent young children from playing graphically horrendous video games. unfortunately, I personally know a GOOD few children who have grown up with these kinds of games. I wouldn't call them violent, but theyre about six times as jaded as most children their age usually are, and most of the ones I have known have become depressed early in their lives. This material should be for people who can handle it, and while i don't think theres anything wrong with a fourteen year old playing a game like this, it could have serious repercussions when played by a child of seven or eight.

@Gamer81
sorry for the multiple posts!
gamer, there IS a restriction on underage persons when it comes to movies!
it is illegal for someone under the age of seventeen to go to a movie that is rated R unless accompanied by an adult, and a person under the age of seventeen cannot purchase nor rent a rated R movie without an adult present.

[...] Suck it, Leland [...]

[...] En Estados Unidos se intentaron aplicar este tipo de leyes. La más reciente fracasó en California hace unas semanas. Un fragmento de la sentencia del juez, que traduciré a continuación, es especialmente significativo: [...]
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
PHX Corphttp://www.polygon.com/2015/5/26/8659397/graphics-complaints-arise-following-new-witcher-3-patch-for-pc Graphics complaints arise following new Witcher 3 patch for PC05/26/2015 - 7:53am
E. Zachary KnightInfo, or they could have left it only for people in your friends list.05/26/2015 - 7:21am
Infophileas being "family friendly." A kid could easily flip an option and be hit with a torrent of abuse they weren't expecting.05/26/2015 - 5:30am
InfophileI think Nintendo was between a rock and a hard place with voice chat in Splatoon. Leave it in, and jerks will drive off younger players. Leave it out, and competitive players won't play. Even if it were in but disabled by default, they couldn't sell it...05/26/2015 - 5:29am
Matthew Wilsonthis is a nice video on P.T https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K-85jO6nRNQ05/25/2015 - 11:57pm
Matthew Wilsonmaybe, but its still kinda sad even as a joke.05/25/2015 - 11:51pm
Goth_SkunkThe best commentary is delivered through humour.05/25/2015 - 11:36pm
Andrew EisenIt's not needed. It's a joke. Albeit one with quite a bit of commentary packed into it.05/25/2015 - 10:59pm
Matthew Wilsonmot game related, but still interesting. http://www.polygon.com/2015/5/25/8654983/jurassic-world-chris-pratt-apology the fact that this is even needed in modern culture is a embarrassment.05/25/2015 - 10:26pm
Matthew Wilsonyeah, but with no voice chat its doa.05/25/2015 - 9:48pm
TechnogeekYet, you're going to be hard-pressed to find anyone other than insecure 2EDGY4U teenagers seeing it as anything other than an extremely fun game.05/25/2015 - 8:36pm
TechnogeekSplatoon's probably the best example at this point. Gameplay-wise, it's a team-based third-person shooter with a significant online component. It's rated E10.05/25/2015 - 8:36pm
TechnogeekThe silliest thing about most of the Nintendo hatred is that they may be the last company that interprets "family-friendly" as meaning "fun for more than just the really young kids".05/25/2015 - 8:33pm
ZippyDSMleeWell it could be worse, like skyrim out of the box, a shame DAI dose not have that level of editing...05/25/2015 - 5:58pm
Zenpretty well without getting "nasty". Many people are disappointed in the decision and the about face on the status of the games development.05/25/2015 - 4:22pm
ZenEvery market has horrible people...but being like this towards all of them in a group is not a way to garner support and can make people more hostile towards you. Ironically his response was to someone that wanted to state a disagreement, but worded it05/25/2015 - 4:22pm
Goth_SkunkAs demonstrated by Ian's remarks, that 'market of possible fans' is apparently negligible.05/25/2015 - 4:18pm
Zeninformation while other versions had everything talked about openly.05/25/2015 - 4:15pm
ZenYeah, I've read through it and wanted to make sure I had it quoted correctly. I get there are issues, but this is horribly unprofessional and just burning a market of possible fans..many of which supported them and were waiting while getting little to no05/25/2015 - 4:15pm
Goth_SkunkOh wow. That's not even misquoted, he actually said that. Though for additional context in previous pages, he truly does not think highly of Nintendo console owners, and claims that in the industry, he's not alone.05/25/2015 - 4:12pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician