January 10, 2008 -
According to a press release from the office of State Sen. Leland Yee (D), California has filed its planned appeal of a U.S. District Court ruling which struck down the state's 2005 video game law last August.Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (R) announced in September that his state would appeal Judge Ronald Whyte's finding that the video game law, authored by Yee, was unconstitutional.
Of the appeal, filed with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, Yee (left) said:
California’s violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of interactive, ultra-violent video games. As stated in the appeal, our efforts to assist parents in the fight to keep these harmful video games out of the hands of children should survive Constitutional challenge under all levels of judicial review.
Based on an extensive body of peer-reviewed research from leading social scientists and medical associations, we narrowly tailored this law to serve the State’s compelling interest in protecting children. I am hopeful that the 9th Circuit will overturn the lower courts decision and help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder.
Should California win its appeal, the video game law would levy fines of up to $1,000 on retailers who sell what Yee terms "ultra-violent" games to minors. Although we've not yet seen the appeal filing, Yee's press release quotes from it:
It defies logic to suggest that our founding fathers intended to adopt a First Amendment that would guarantee children the right to purchase a video game wherein the player is rewarded for interactively causing the character to take out a shovel and bash the head of an image of a human being, appearing to beg for her life, until the head severs from the body and blood gushes from the neck.
Or guarantee children the right to purchase a video game where the player can cause the character to wound an image of a human being with a rifle by shooting out a kneecap, pour gasoline on the wounded character, and then set the character on fire while the character appears to be alive and suffering.
Instead, the proper, more reasoned approach to First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes that the rights of minors are not coextensive with those of adults. States must be allowed to legislate to protect the health and welfare of children with certain universally recognized differences between adults and children in mind.
The case won't likely be decided before 2009 at the earliest. Meanwhile, the California law is blocked from taking effect by Judge Whyte's ruling.
Comments
I have never played a game or seen a game that had those scenarios.
So where was that research when the law was originally challenged. If it is that conclusive, don't you think it would have warranted showing to the original judge?
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
Parents already have the power to make that choice, Mr. Yee. You're taking away those parents' power to MAKE IT.
"It defies logic to suggest that our founding fathers intended to adopt a First Amendment that would guarantee children the right to purchase a video game wherein the player is rewarded for interactively causing the character to take out a shovel and bash the head of an image of a human being"
Maybe because, nine times out of ten, it ISN'T seen as a reward in the game?
"Or guarantee children the right to purchase a video game where the player can cause the character to wound an image of a human being with a rifle by shooting out a kneecap, pour gasoline on the wounded character"
...are you just making these up as you go along for the shock value, Mr. Yee?
"Instead, the proper, more reasoned approach to First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes that the rights of minors are not coextensive with those of adults. States must be allowed to legislate to protect the health and welfare of children with certain universally recognized differences between adults and children in mind."
In other words, you're saying that parents have NO free will, and that the government knows people's children better than the parents do.
Riiiiiight.
Mr. Yee, come back when you're not insulting every parent not only in the state of California, but in the entire country. Maybe then you'll actually sound unbiased.
Also, if the research was that conclusive, the bill would have survived the first legal challenge, wouldn't it?
Can we get this man hooked up to a lie detector? I want to ask him some questions about where he gets these ridiculous scenarios and false reports.
No, seriously, I want this man tested. I'm willing to bet that Gamers would fund the project themselves and we can get this all sorted out once and for all.
"California’s violent video game law IMproperly seeks to "protect" children from the UNPROVEN harmful effects of interactive, ultra-violent video games. As stated in the appeal, our efforts to UNDERMINE THE AUTHORITY OF parents REGARDING WHAT THEIR CHILDREN SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT PLAY should survive Constitutional challenge under all levels of judicial review.
Based on an INCREDIBLY SMALL AND NARROW body of peer-reviewed research from leading social scientists and medical associations, IGNORING OTHER CONTRADICTORY YET JUST AS VALID RESEARCH FINDINGS, we narrowly tailored this UNCONSTITUTIONAL law to serve the NANNY State’s compelling interest in protecting children. I am hopeful that the 9th Circuit will overturn the lower courts CORRECT AND REASONABLE decision and help UNDERMINE parents REGARDING the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of UNREALISTIC AND MAKE BELIEVE violence and murder."
"It defies logic to suggest that our founding fathers intended to adopt a First Amendment that would guarantee children the right to purchase a video game wherein the player is rewarded for interactively causing the character to take out a shovel and bash the head of an image of a human being, appearing to beg for her life, until the head severs from the body and blood gushes from the neck."
I dare him to show us the clip of this game. Or even a screenshot. Hell, even tell us what game it is!!!!
"Or guarantee children the right to purchase a video game where the player can cause the character to wound an image of a human being with a rifle by shooting out a kneecap, pour gasoline on the wounded character, and then set the character on fire while the character appears to be alive and suffering."
Again, another make believe scenario from Yee's imagination, where games are apparently photo-realistic.
"Instead, the proper, more reasoned approach to First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes that the rights of minors are not coextensive with those of adults. States must be allowed to legislate to protect the health and welfare of children with certain universally recognized differences between adults and children in mind."
The First Amendment isn't something that you can tailor to your own agenda.
Actually, it would be the other way around. This entire 'protect the children' (and the related romantization and extension of 'innocence) stuff came MUCH later. Even obscenity laws are still fairly new.
The entire idea that children can't handle adult material and must be kept 'separate' is a pretty new concept and, IMHO, rather twisted. I've watched far more damage done to children by trying to force some kind of abstract artificial concept of 'childhood' on people rather then letting them learn what they want to learn when.
But lets not let historical fact get in the way of Yee's grandstanding....
Holy crap! This game sounds awesome! I want to buy it for my 6 year old cousin!
Ugg...
Maybe he's getting this "video game scenario" mixed with a movie? Resevoir Dogs? Hostel? Various crappy horror movies?
GP, do you have a phone number/address of Yee's office for people to complain about this frivolous lawsuit?
In fact, this isn't an issue of the First Amendment Rights of children, as Yee has falsely claimed. This is about the Rights of Parents to make THEIR OWN decisions as to what is or is not appropriate for THEIR OWN children. Yee's argument, and the arugment of other politicians, has been "ONLY the government knows what is and is not appropriate for YOUR children and the ONLY resource for information available to Parents should be what the government provides". That last bit is proven by the fact of large amounts of actually existing resources for Parents and individiuals to research regarding specific products but the government, including Yee, falsely claims there aren't any resources for Parents to use.
Parents DO have resources to research and make THEIR OWN decisions and retailers DO have policies in place based on the rating system for video games, unlike movies, music, and books.
Leland Yee also attempts to lie to and deceive the court into believing that ONLY interactive media, video games, will lead someone to have emotional responses which may lead to aggressive behavior which may lead to violent response. Anyone performing INTELLIGENT observations will see that even non-interactive exposures can lead to even violent acts, let alone aggressive behavior or even mere emotional reactions.
Yee perfers to throw "protect the children" around like some sick pervert holding up a child to shield themselves from gunfire. Yee, from time to time, does have some decent points, but he overshadows them with sensationalism, misinformation, and outright lies and deceit. Just like any Tin-Pot-Dictator-Wannbe who wants to force their own personal, religious, and/or political beliefs upon others.
What's next Senator Yee? Are you going to scream "Only Right Minded people think like I do! Everyone else worships Satan!"?
Nightwng2000
NW2K software
how about no?
Senator, perhaps you should be focusing on helping parents make the right choice, instead of removing that choice.
parents have the power over their children's buying habits. why/how? because they're PARENTS!
durr.
I don't know what "game" he might be referring to. Manhunt 2, perhaps?
"Or guarantee children the right to purchase a video game where the player can cause the character to wound an image of a human being with a rifle by shooting out a kneecap, pour gasoline on the wounded character, and then set the character on fire while the character appears to be alive and suffering."
I'm pretty sure there are no games where you can shoot out a kneecap. I think you can shoot people in the legs in RE4, and you can set people on fire in MH2, but I don't think there are any games that do both.
In short, Lee is taking the most violent examples of video games, blending them into 1 imaginary game, and then using his rhetorical game to further his own cause.
Why doesn't he use Custer's Revenge, too?
I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would have intended to adopt a guarantee that a child doing something horrible to an image, would in fact be protected, because they didn't equate drawing a picture of a man being decapitated, and actually decapitating someone.
Otherwise you venture into the realm of thought-crime...
It would seem that Yee was able to stumble upon the script to the next release of Manhunt.
however, instead of trying to write some of the most vague legislation imaginable and fighting the first amendment, and losing i might add, why doesnt Lee A, jump on board and actively support the ESRB, and B, go talk to the retailers and go along with this whole 'industry self-regulation' thing, on the whole i think that self-regulation is working out quite well, instead he's trying to look the victim here, that his law to 'protect the children' is being unjustly stopped by the courts, grow up guy, stop acting like a child, and get off your high horse and do something smart for a change
In Metal Gear Solid, Meryl gets her kneecap shot out. Of course, you're not the one doing the shooting and it's a cutscene. Although IIRC, if you shoot someone in the knee in MGS, they'll start limping.
Not like Yee's FUD and BS holds up, though.
"wherein the player is rewarded for interactively causing the character to take out a shovel and bash the head of an image of a human being, appearing to beg for her life, until the head severs from the body and blood gushes from the neck.
Or guarantee children the right to purchase a video game where the player can cause the character to wound an image of a human being with a rifle by shooting out a kneecap, pour gasoline on the wounded character, and then set the character on fire while the character appears to be alive and suffering."
What games let you do that? I would SO love to play those games. Just to tick this guy off. I have always hated how we treat children like they are empty headed little robots that don't actually exist as individual entities until the magic age of 18.
Judging by how blindly the people here have accepted some 1984'ish laws, I'd say not only do they agree, but are being led around blindly like sheep.
He's likely talking about Postal 2, which you can only buy from the developer's website, with a credit card, and can NOT buy it in a retail store.
Yep, San Fran-freakshow. Being across the bay from that city I seriously think that it should be split from the Union because of the huge show of disrepect they've shown to serving US soldiers (family has a long history of military service in 5 major wars; it's a sensitive issue in the family).
FYI, from the wiki entry on him:
On September 4, 2007 it was revealed that IP addresses registered to computers in the California Senate office had made changes to its Wikipedia entry favoring Leland Yee. [5] It was reported that they removed the 1992 shoplifting allegations and the video game controversies sections.
Also along the same train of thought as JT. When in doubt, hide the truth.
during the founding of our country, children were put to work as soon as they could haul crap and take an order. they were treated as miniature adults.
"Being across the bay from that city I seriously think that it should be split from the Union because of the huge show of disrepect they’ve shown to serving US soldiers (family has a long history of military service in 5 major wars; it’s a sensitive issue in the family)."
well obviously you don't value the constitution enough to know it is their right to disrespect soldiers and their duty as citizens to demand the government be held accountable for its actions.
we took an oath to protect the constitution and the union for all citizens, not just the ones who buy those shitty little magnetic yellow ribbons.
"The player is rewarded for interactively causing the character to take out a shovel and bash the head of an image of a human being..."
Nope. Sorry. In many of these ultraviolent games, the only reward for being excessively violent is the self-satisfying thrill of being excessively violent. Postal does not congratulate you for setting someone on fire. GTA does not provide you with tasty treats for running over prostitutes (though sometimes you might cause them to drop a pitifully small amount of cash, it is hardly a reward when completing a simple mission will get you 10,000 times as much). Skateboarding through a plate glass window in THUG2 rewards you by letting you, um, see a window smash.
Violence against innocents in games is typically something that simply *can happen*. This is where people seem to get the wrong end of the stick: The reward is seeing the consequences of your actions without actually experiencing the consequences in the real world. That's it. What happens if you plant a mine in a pond and then set someone on fire? You can do it in BioShock and have fun watching what happens.
Violent sandbox games reward morbid curiosity with morbid scenes. The depravity you see in these games is only as extreme as your own desire to see it, then scaled back by the limitations of the technology.
"It defies logic to suggest that our founding fathers intended to adopt a First Amendment that would guarantee children the right to purchase a video game wherein the player is rewarded for interactively causing the character to take out a shovel and blah blah blah blah..."
It seems to me that our founding fathers adopted the First Amendment precisely to prevent the kind of abuse of free speech that Yee is perpetrating, all to further his political career. Whether or not the content is too violent for kids should be left up to the parent, not up to second-rate politicos. Yee is just offering up another excuse for people to have kids and avoid the responsibility of raising them. I'll be doing all that I can to see to it that he's not re-elected, even if it means *gasp* voting Republican.
I wonder if he would approve of a violent game in which the player character was arrested and sent to jail for the crimes the player made the character perform. Perhaps.
E. Zachary Knight
Divine Knight Gaming
OK Game Devs
Random Tower
(i.e. Gaven Newsom, the medical majuana groups, Leland Yee, Hollywood celebs, ect). In many ways it’s very much a group of social facists who decide that they, as a small group of people, have the right to dictate what the rest of the population can or cannot do because they ‘have their best interests in mind’
Sounds like the "moral majority" who are rarely moral and never a majority. They were and are a very loud minority that tends to get thier way because through bitching, griping or twisting the meaning of the law. Then are able to trample their ideas over the majority who does not know or does not much care (apathy can be dangerous).
Such groups cannot be ignored or even taken lightly as they have had impact in the past such as Prohibition and removing Cigarette ads from TV (while leaving alcohol).
The cure or at least offset for those is as always knowledge. Make the true majority aware of the situation and they can (and have) slap down the loud whiners. The trick if getting the attention and interest of said majority.
.
..
...
....
If you didn`t believe it youself, no one else would.
And completely failed.
Read Judge Whyte’s ruling. You can’t just say you have a compelling State interest to protect children from psychological harm and call it a day. You have to do three very important things:
1. Prove there’s something out there that’s psychologically harming children that the state needs to protect them from. (Sorry, increased aggression doesn’t constitute psychological harm.)
2. Prove that your law will actually protect children from psychological harm. (Does the law keep kids from playing the games? No? Then it fails.)
3. Prove that your law would be more effective then the measures already out there. (Will a sales restriction work better then game ratings, parental involvement, parental controls, and the oodles of readily available information? No. Especially considering that well over ninety percent of the time, kids aren’t the ones buying the games anyway!)
Andrew Eisen
Honestly, all he does is spread lies about video games to get his way.
Around here, if the talking head on the box says it's true then people don't argue with it and follow blindly. Of course this is also the state where prozac and Starbucks keep the population in an artificial happy bubble where everything here is great and everyone else is some tolitarian trying to take away their rights and freedoms.
"Where in the crap are they getting those gameplay examples????"
Same place all the other 'crap' they come up with comes from. ;)
And, besides, during the revolution, "children" as young as 13 (and possibly younger) were wounding real, live human beings with actual rifles. As such, I seriously doubt the imaginary wounding of "an image of a human being with a rifle" would have upset them much.
Anyhow, since this is the 9th Circus we're talking about, I won't be surprised to see a narrow majority rule in favor of the law..