The political battle over video games heated up today in California as both sides made strategic moves.
State Sen. Leland Yee, via press release, applauded Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger's promised appeal of last month's federal court ruling that California's 2005 video game law was unconstitutional. Said Yee:
I am very pleased to see the Governor's commitment to this issue. This is a common-sense law that empowers parents by giving them the ultimate authority over whether or not their children can play in a world of violence and murder.
For his part, Gov. Schwarzenegger added:
We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions. These games are for adults, and the law I signed ensures that parents have the chance to determine which video games are appropriate for their children.
Yee wasn't finished:
The deliberations in this case took over a year, which shows that the ever-growing body of evidence that violent video games are harmful to children is getting harder and harder to ignore. The medical data clearly indicates that these ultra-violent video games have harmful effects on kids, and thus we have a state interest to protect them.
The $31 billion video game industry has fought any attempt at regulation every step of the way. They fought efforts to publicize their rating system because they thought it would impact sales, and now they're again putting their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.
Meanwhile, an ESA press release announced that the video game industry would seek to recover $324,840 it spent in legal fees battling California's law. Said ESA boss Mike Gallagher:
California citizens should be outraged at their elected leaders. Hard-earned tax dollars were spent on defending this law that California's state leaders knew was unconstitutional. Before Senator Leland Yee [the bill's sponsor] proposed this bill, federal and district
courts across the country ruled that the path California was taking would run afoul of the First Amendment.
From early on, the industry warned Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Yee that this bill was unconstitutional and would be thrown out by the courts and that California taxpayers would pay the cost.
We lead in providing caregivers the most comprehensive and effective information and tools to control the content used by their children. And, we invite California legislators, community leaders, family advocates, and the Governor to work with us - as policymakers in Utah, Oklahoma, and Rhode Island already do-in raising awareness and usage of the resources provided.
GP: We should point out for clarity's sake that the timing of Gov. Schwarzenegger's appeal and the ESA's claim for legal expenses are unrelated to one another.
Comments
Its...its one of those things. I get so upset, but its so hard to counter it.
Its like dealing with the insurgents in Iraq. The people practically brain wash their fellow citizens into blowing themselves up. Its nearly impossible to counter that. :(
He can't get re-elected, but he can get elected to some other role, either in California or in the Federal Government.
He could also be showcasing his "strong convictions" and "moral backbone" while interviewing for some morality police position on a juicy role with some think tank.
Just to add, I really hope some one has the sense to sue Governor Schwarzenegger for all the viloent fims he made and contributing to the "obvious" problem.
Ah well, it's not their money, so I don't suppose they care of they throw it away.
On this quote alone, Senator Yee should be ousted from the senate. This is a blatant lie.
How come that a senator that blatantly lies keeps his place, while a senator who does something in the bathroom of a bar with some other guy is considered less trustworthy, even though it has nothing to do with politics and is in essence a private matter ?
You know what I don't get? Yee is not up for re-election. He can't, state rules. So why is he wasting his time on a clearly do-nothing fluff bill that has only been put forth in other jurisdictions by people wanting to prove they're "strong on morality" in order to get re-elected?
Why not figure out how to do it right? What's the point in wasting effort on a doomed bill that's only going to tarnish any legacy he wants to leave?
@chadachada
So wait…the video game industry says tax-payers should be outraged at the spending of tax dollars for this…but also wants 320k of California taxdollars? lol…
The industry has every right to demand it be compensated for the legal fees wasted getting an unconstitutional law shut down. What they're saying is that Californians should be outraged not at the fact that legal fees are being paid out, but that a bill that needed to be defeated ever got signed in the first place.
Sort of a "don't blame me, blame the idiot who put this bill on the table. I'm just collecting compensation for him having wasted my time. maybe you should talk to him about that too..."
"It’s too bad the ESA and video game companies can’t sue the politicians themselves for perusing these laws."
Similar to being a corporation, government is sued as an entity, not as a collection of politicians trying to pad their public resumes...
Um, no. The government seizing more power for itself is not putting power into the hands of parents. If anything its taking it out of their hands. People really seem to ignore history. Nothing good ever comes of a government that seeks more and more power.
"The deliberations in this case took over a year, which shows that the ever-growing body of evidence that violent video games are harmful to children is getting harder and harder to ignore. The medical data clearly indicates that these ultra-violent video games have harmful effects on kids, and thus we have a state interest to protect them."
Um, no. More and more evidence is coming out to the contrary. And more and more evidence is coming out which points out the flaws in the studies that Yee refers to.
"From early on, the industry warned Governor Schwarzenegger and Senator Yee that this bill was unconstitutional and would be thrown out by the courts and that California taxpayers would pay the cost. "
The industry speaketh the truth.
They clearly don't give a damn about the people, cause there wasting the peoples money on this BS bill, they should be ashamed.
Yee is looking uphill, not for state re-election, but likely looking to move into Congress. Either that, or just is so childish he can't stand to be proven wrong.
I wish that Arnold and Yee would give this up already. The judge gave a pretty stren ruling on the matter. What would a new judge say? Nothing different.
Both also talk about the harmful effects that violent games have on kids.
What harmful effects?!
The most negative thing any credible study has ever indicated is that violent games might increase aggression in kids. And, as every person with an IQ above that of a lima bean knows: aggression does not equal violence. How is a marginal, short-term increase in aggression (similar to what attendees of a high school football game experience, no doubt) harmful to children?
Argh!
Andrew Eisen
However, his statement may have meant he would not appeal as a member of the State Assembly and not the Senate. In that case he was misleading.
Technically, he didn't lie since Arnie did the appealing.
I don't think anyone can say that any better. What do parents get from a law that helps them make decisions about what their children view?
Even if the law created a committee to review each game in a public forum, and was completely transparent and reviewable by the public, so what? What tool does that give to parents? Let's say more games are labeled as violent / not suitable for children and a fine is given to retailers who get caught selling the material to children... how does that assist parents who buy the games for their children anyway, or do not keep track of what their children get into at friends' houses?
Assuming that such a committee would be transparent (which it would not be) as Yee asserts the ESRB should be with it's review process, and assuming the ratings are genuine, what difference can it make? If a minor kills someone, and is found in ownership of an 'adult' game, the game will get blamed anyway -- not the parents, not the fire arms industry (if a gun is used), not the education system, not the police, NOT EVEN THE KID WHO DID THE CRIME!
So honestly, can anyone -- Jack T, Yee, anyone -- tell me what good such a law would do?
Wait a sec... so Yee means to say that i DID NOT see a commercial for the ERSB rating system the just the other night on TV; that the game retailers DO NOT block the sale of games to minors 58% of the time and instead never block game sales to minors; That Sony, Microsoft, and Nintendo DO NOT have parental controls in the consoles; and that the game industry HAS NOT been working together with government officals to help advertise and educate poeple on the ESRB rating system... well damn, i guess i need to get my eyes, ears, and WHOLE PERCEPTION OF REALITY checked.
honestly, that statement of his gets to me every damn time...
@chadachada
The $320k is how much the game industry spent defending themselves from this unconstitutional law (high priced lawers over the years). It's in their right to seek compensation for money they should have never needed to spend in the first place... They are not seeking to profit from this, they are only seeking to break even.
What's worst for taxpayers is that how much of their money was WASTED is actually going to be about double that amount as the gov't probably spent the same amount of money themselves trying to win the court battle... so that's about half-a-million dollars down the drain for a law that should have never been passed in the first placed since it was clearly unconstitutional.
it kind of annoys me how poeple say "spent" instead of "wasted"... spending money assume that you actually GAINED something from the money that was used. However, if you use money but end up with nothing, than it's just plain wasted... Politicans aren't SPENDING taxpayer money on these laws, they are WASTING it.
@dutch_gamer
well, i'm not sure if it counts, but technically Yee didn't appeal the law, the govenor did... however, i think Yee was just blowing hot air, as he was probably under the self-delusion that his law was going to be passed; he probably would have appealed anyway if no one else did.
Well, I would have watched it at a younger age if it had been out ;)
Seriously though, you post a good example of what I'm getting at, do you think Arnold Schwarzenegger would try to introduce a law to protect people from the Violent Imagery in movies? Of course not, and it's not hard to guess why. Do you think Yee will demand that the MPAA be transparent? Of course not, and it's not hard to guess why either.
Fought regulation? Uh, let's see:
There's a rating system in place.
Most major game publishers have their games rated.
Most major retailers have policies in place regarding the sale of certain rated games.
Hmm... seems regulated to me.
Oh! Wait! I see! He means regulated to dictate HIS OWN personal, religious, and/or political beliefs upon other individuals and Parents. Ah, that's clearer.
I guess American Pie Unrated and Saw III Unrated are ok to be sold to minors without the government dictating whether they should be deemed appropriate for children or not. Or are there laws on the CA lawbooks that regulate the sale of rated R, NC-17, or even Unrated movies in CA's brick and mortar retail stores?
Oh yeah, I forgot, interactive media is more dangerous. Hmmm... Like the interactivity of spectators at a sporting event who've begun fist fights and even riots? Or the Parents at a kid's sporting event who attack players or other Parents? Wait... they aren't taking part in the sport itself. Hmmm... What about the viewers of a news report about an injustice (such as the Rodney King beating) who become so angry and/or frustrated that they run out and riot, attacking other people? Wait... they weren't interacting with the original situation. Hmmmm..... Oh... Oh... I know! The interactivity of someone being taught bigotry and hate for whole groups of Humans based on religious beliefs! Yeah, yeah, that's the ticket! I mean, some of those folks, even kids, go out and abuse other people mentally, verbally, or even physically or sexually. Oh... wait... that's religion and it's specially protected. Can't touch it. Besides, "God" says it's ok to hate "them kind of people".
Yeah, interactive media is unique. It's the only thing that can or should be regulated because... well... it's interactive, so there! :P
:/
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
I feel the same way.
When i get home tonight i'm going to write a letter to them stating my distaste for wasting my tax payer money.
Does anyone know where, or can provide, a list of studies done on the Violent VG effects? It would be appreciated. Thanks.
Don't forget that his likeness has appeared in violent video games.
I'll guess it's ok if he's making money off them.
Yes, but at which point does wasting taxpayers' money stop being about governing and starts being fraud? If you knowingly pass laws that are unconstitutional for political gain, aren't you just using California State taxpayers as a re-election campaign piggy bank?
It would be awesome if some reporter asked the Governator where is he gonna get the money from, and then follow up when California State takes the $320K from the education budget, or the food stamps program budget, or the after-school program budget, or highway construction budget.
The money is gonna come from SOMEWHERE. And since it's an unbudgeted expense, it's gotta be coming out of some other budget line item.
There is also the possibility he's tryign to create a bigger mess for the next administration to clean up/take the fall for
None of this behavior should be a surprise...but I hope the video game industry gets their money, because chucklehead politicians need to pay.
Frankly, I wouldn't be surprised if the politicians are looking for video game industry kickbacks.
....WHY would some retarded idiot say that and then expect people to not see what the hell just happened? I honestly wonder why he became governor of California when he knows nothing about politics.
My memory is rusty, but I remember hearing that the family he married into (the Shrivers) have been a pretty politically active family for a long time, which may have been a motivational factor.
I'm honestly not inclined to think ill of him on that score. He was already rich and famous, so there can't have been much in the way of motivation to run for a rigorous, high-stress position which would undoubtedly force him into the spotlight and to make decisions that would make him unpopular with certain demographics, unless he had a genuine interest in the position.
Or his wife wanted him to do it. Who knows?
He honestly believes in what he is fighting for. I know, I know, that is rare in a politician, but he has nothing to gain politically. Listening and reading to the things he says you get the idea he believes in what he is doing, no matter how misguided it may be.
Interesting. So, I'm going to spend a year making a court consider various "proofs" that grass is black. Can I then turn around and claim "clearly, since the court did not immediately decide against me, the evidence that grass is black is getting hard to ignore?"
I used to call that conservative logic. Now I guess it's liberal logic too.
Empowers parents? Quite an oxymoron when it's the government calling the shots. Besides, what use is this law if parents are the ones buying these for their kids in the first place. Perfect example: I remember a mom, with what I think was no knowledge of the ratings' existence, buy his son, who I believe wasn't even 8 at the time, GTA Vice City. Where's your precious government control now?!
~Sol~
I guess this is a good way for him to waste our tax dollars and budget money he got from cutting the homeless psychiatric assistance program.................. Oh wait he wasted that money giving Yacht owners tax breaks...... whoops.
You're giving Yee too much credit. The only reason he "believes" in it is for election purposes. Be it soccer moms or certain contributors to his campaign. He showed a long time ago that he's nothing more than a typical bought and paid for politician. He's only slightly better than he who deserves to not be named and more dangerous because he's in a position of power in a state where it looks like Arnold's years of past steroid use shrunk his testicles and made him one of those "girly men" that he use to make fun of.
isn't that like saying we give parents the ultimate authority over whether or not their children can be mass murderers and rapists, since we have laws that forbid these acts?
Common sense is parents taking time to observe the media their kids are immersing themselves in.
This anti-Constitutional law does NOT empower parents in any way, it only gives the STATE ultimate authority over who can purchase certain types of media.
Parents already have authority over their kids, its just that many these days are afraid to use it because their moody emo brats might just start cutting themselves again in protest.
Better not let them outside ever again if that's the case.
But I guess being married to Skeletor would make anyone lose their mind. :P
Hey, if it means taking this all the way up to SCOTUS and putting the smackdown on these kinds of laws once and for all, I say bring it on.
@ Eville 1
Shriver's a Kennedy? I know she is but looking at her it's kind of hard to believe. I could have sworn I saw her while going through the Pirates of the Caribbean ride! ;)
While we're on the subject of how old we were when we saw certain movies or shows, between the ages of 4 and 6 I used to watch a Japanese show called Johnny Sokko and his Flying Robot. And let me tell you, they literally got away with murder on that show: people were gunned-down on camera and threatened with all manner of grisly deaths on a regular basis, children were menaced frequently, heck even the two child leads carried and shot firearms and were often put in danger (although considering they both worked for a secret anti-terrorist group that was kind of to be expected). It was enough to give people like JT or Joe Lieberman hissyfits. Suffice it to say you can't make a show like that on TV anymore.
If you bleached half of Maria Shriver's hair white, you'd end up with Cruella di Vil.
As a California resident, voter and taxpayer, I am not disappointed in what's going on because it was simply going to happen no matter what. Incredibly predictable. First, I had no voting control over Leland Yee, and second, Schwarzenegger is not the same guy he was when he first came into office and now just bends to pressure most of the time.
I was checking my wii out the other night. Flipping through the wii settings, and lo and behold, i see a parental control part! :O! It CAME with the damn system. I didnt have to download anything, or buy anything. It came with it.
I want to go down to one of those conventions. Hook a Wii up, and show them all the 'defense' that the parents need is right there.
I would LOVE to do that. How could they counter that?
/Sorry on the double post.
Also, I'm inclined to say that this will never go to the SCOTUS. They choose what cases they want to hear and usually favor cases in which there is considerable ambiguity and/or some interesting legal question to be answered. The courts thus far have been unanimous on the video game legislation issue, and their rulings have to my knowledge been fairly clearly against legislation. Simply put, the Supreme Court has better things to do than just set more precedent on the video game legislation issue, and I'd be extraordinarily surprised (and a little concerned) if such an appeal led to all the decisions being overturned in favor of legislation.
Something strikes me as odd about this line.. The fact of the matter is that the industry has defeated what.. 8-9 of these unconstitutional bills? With each defeat the amount of precedence should be making the process of striking them down /Shorter/ the BS 'evidence' that they use to try and pass these things should be show as more and more faulty and the so could "growing body of evidence" should be shrinking with each defeat that shows the evidence isnt there.
So why isnt it?
Because a politician willing to get votes by slandering an already demonized form of media is more than willing to overlooked the minor detail that a particular study has been debunked. It's not about facts. That's what makes this topic such a frustrating one. No one really CARES about what's true, they care about what gets more airtime.
Yee is forming and building his future political plans to attacks issues on the good ship:nani-nator(derstoier of what or for the protection of kids from media..you be the judge...).
LOL
because even a farmer can heap a pile of dung on top of a gold watch.
it isn't about accuracy, it's about fillibustering the courts.
I supposed I just had the silly hopeful notion that when something had been debunked in court 7-8 times in the past that any future courts that had the evidence presented to them would quickly dismiss it and speed up the proceedings without being bogged down with what everyone knows and has proven to be completely useless data
ah. if only.
Unlike the Supremes -- who, as you've correctly noted, get to pick and choose the cases they hear on appeal -- the intermediate appellate courts don't have the option of declining to hear appeals from the district courts. And even a Jack Thompson-like attorney can always find some some basis for appeal (e.g., the wrong legal standard was used, the right legal standard was used but applied incorrectly, etc.). So, appealing a district court's decision to an appellate court is practically a matter of the appellant's right to do so.
The irony, of course, is that many state governors lead the movement to restrict the rights of prisoners (including death row prisoners) to access the federal appeals process, claiming, in part, that prisoner appeals frivolously clutter the courts. Pot, meet Kettle. Kettle, meet Pot.
It's amazing how hypocritical Arnold Schwarzenegger has become in this travesty, as others have shown. How many movies has Arnold starred in that didn't have anything that could be considered as "violence"? Even his family-friendly movies(Kindergarten Cop, Jingle All The Way) has "violence" somewhere in them. And, as others have noted, Schwarzenegger's likeness has been featured in various video games based on movies like the Terminator series, True Lies, etc.
Yet, he and Pee-Wee Yee won't go after the movie industry with the same zeal that they do the video game industry.
Schwarzenegger's proving that steroids do cause brain damage.
I like a good sword, I need a ship, I want do something for my Guild....
but the game is hard, how can I do?
Thegoldgrinder.com the gold is hard to collect, but you can got it easy here!
“TTGteam534”
WOW gold
Woeld of warcraft gold
EVE online ISK
EVE online ships
EVE online Implants
EVE online Modules
Guild wars gold
GW gold
Anarchy Online credits
AO credits
Dofus Kamas
Last Chaos gold
Lastchaos gold
Rappelz Rupees
Runescape gold
RS2 gold
Maple Story Mesos
Maplestory Mesos
Silkroad Gold
Silk road gold
LOTRO gold
SWG credits
Star Wars Galaxies credits