California Files Appeal on Video Game Law Ruling
California Files Appeal on Video Game Law Ruling
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?
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.
(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..
You can actually do that stuff in Postal 2.
its a good thing california doesnt need that tax money for anything else
They seriously should put it to good use instead of wasting it like this.
Indeed, like road repair, freeway expansion, levee repair, schools, a state deficit, teachers, police officers, and that constitutionally illegal Indian gambling bill that's coming up.
Nope, no need for the tax money at all.
You mean, in a game primarily sold via download distribution over the internet and thus wouldn't be targeted by this law in the first place? That Postal 2?
Yee fails yet again!
"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"
The concept of a video game in general (hell probably a TV even) would be completely alien to them so of course they didn't consider them. Now the founding fathers do not determine what is and is not free speech they were never judges (to my knowledge) and they are all dead. We can only conclude that the founding fathers might not approved only because this type of violence would have shocked them, as does a lot of stuff we do today. But even then it's still ignorant to assume you would know the exact opinion of the founding fathers when they never had to deal with the whole issue of 'does violent media = speech'. The fact is though that video games can easily be free speech just as any story with any type of theme is.
Oh and second off, why should the right of free speech to minors be more restricted than that of adults? I'd like to see an answer to that.
Either way it is fallacious at best (disgusting, conniving, despicable and possibly evil at worst) that he chooses the exception to the rule (postal games) and tries to pretend it represents the majority
The other option, either granting government power to the ESRB, or creating a separate, state sponsored ratings system, is immediately unconstitutional, because it can lead to blackballing and defacto banning.
None of this takes into account the "scientific and peer reviewed studies" that have been proven to be flawed and unusable in court, or Yee's extremely uneducated use of examples of "ultra-violent" games that "prove why this law is needed" which aren't even rated by the ESRB and/or sold as hard copies, and therefore would not be covered by the law in the first place.
Once again, this type of legislation is proven to be epic fail.
Yee is a "nanny state" supporter, and doesn't quit. If the ESRB is smart, they will never make nice with this anti-video game politician. At least Yee's consistent on his idiocy.
I have said this before and will continue to repeat, Yee is more dangerous to the video game industry than Johnny Bruce Thompson ever will be, because Yee has actual real legislative power to abuse-Thompson will never be more than someone making a lot of noise.
Having the right to appeal is a good thing, if you have a good reason for believing the original decision was flawed (which would be the case if there was new information or a questionable use of case law by the judge.) But Yee has none of that. The appeal is based solely on Yee's belief that a higher court will be more favorable to the law. At best this is a shameful inability to understand that the original law has some obvious flaws to it; at worst it's forum-shopping - it's pretty weak to just keep appealing to have the case heard by as many people as possible just so you can hope one of them will agree with you.
1) Quote - "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."
Answer - No, it does not. See my previous post as to why.
2) Quote - "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."
Answer - Again, it has not been "narrowly tailored", if it did, it would include specific ratings that would be deemed too high for minors, which again would be unconstitutional.
3) Quote - "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."
Answer - The parents are already empowered but multiple sources which are all third party and independent of the game industry. If a parent doesn't think the ESRB rating is enough, all they need to do is hit the internet, there are a wealth of sources that give a variety of descriptions and opinions of each game, and at least one of them is bound to match the opinions and views of the parent.
4) Quote - "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."
Answer - The Founding Fathers intended to adopt a First Amendment that would ensure that any level of government would not censor or restrict access to ANY form of speech, including violent and/or obscene speech, for ALL United States citizens. Questions of taste and appropriateness are entirely up to the individual. This argument has held up in courts at every level several times already.
5) - Quote "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."
Answer - Courts have proven that minors do have a level of First Amendment rights that are almost, if not the same, as adults. The only way that could be circumvented is if there is 100% proof that a form of speech is proven to be detrimental and harmful to minors, but not adults. This is extremely hard to prove, especially when it comes to teenagers. None of the studies Yee has cited can prove 100% without a shadow of a doubt that playing violent videogames is a direct harm to every minor, no matter what age or level of maturity. Therefore, his argument does not hold.
I'm no expert at law, but I do know enough to blast every point Yee has made in his press release right out of the water. If the appeal follows his press release, I see no reason why any judge at any level could overturn the original ruling.
I don't really understand the problem with there being a law that says "hey, obey what the box says and don't sell these things to people younger than that"... I don't see why it doesn't apply to all other forms of entertainment though.
Although, yes, they use outdated examples of video games and scare monger to try and get it.. at base, what is wrong with supporting the rating system in law?
Make it apply to all entertainment products, make the punishments on a corporate level, make it apply only to the sale so parents can buy it for their kids. Last time I heard its this way in the UK and here in Aus (although I could be wrong, I've never really needed to research it).
If your justification for arguing against this is that it violations you're oh so precious Constitution, you need to take a long hard look at that document and the people who defend it, and its intentions. The so called "founding fathers" would I have no doubt be spinning in their graves if they knew some of the things that were defended by people referencing it. Its old, dated, and was not intended to defend people's "right" to own extremely violent video games any more than it was intended to defend people's "right" to carry automatic weapons.
"Video games don't cause violence so why should they be restricted".. now THAT is a valid argument for not putting laws like this. But like it or not, there are people out there who simply do not believe this content is right for kids.. lots of them.. many of them would not go as far as to say that it causes violence, but many of them just don't feel its good in general. Just like they probably don't want their kids watching Saw or Postal, or hardcore porn, or even documentaries with lots of violence, sex or other themes in them. Laws to limit these things being sold to people younger than the tag age simply make it the parent's choice, not the choice of some brat who won't obey his parents and a shop that won't enforce the box cover.
Okay, so one game. Which, last I checked was rated 'M', and therefore not for children. Which renders any complaints about the content not being kid-friendly immediately null and void all throughout the universe.
The problem, for me personally, is not so much that children should not play games intended for adults, we all agree with that concept, both sides of the argument, my problem is with the idea that this law should apply only to Video Games, it singles them out using the worst kind of stereotyping and generalisation, and establishes a precedent that people who play Video Games are somehow in the same league as smokers or drinkers, who are the only other groups which have their distribution controlled by a non-voluntary system. That, in and of itself, would be an open door to vexatious litigation by Jack Thompson wannabee's throughout the US, such a law, if passed, would effectively be a blatant claim that Video Games were an immediate health risk (not a passive one). In somewhere like the US it would be like opening the floodgates and would stand a high chance of crippling the Game Industries ability to grow for decades, much as the Comic Code did for Comics in the US.
The issue at hand with any form of government enforced ratings (at any level of government), is that it opens things up to blackballing and defacto banning because someone at a high level of power doesn't like something in a game. Like I said before, anyone could call a Loony Tunes game "ultra-violent", advise the game be refused a rating, and therefore ban it from being sold because it does not have a rating. That exact case happened in the UK with Manhunt 2. The two examples are a world apart (Loony Tunes and Manhunt), but they both still stand. There's also a decent chance that, with that type of legislation, T2 and Rockstar could be blacklisted for ratings, and have almost any game held back, even a game that probably wouldn't get an "M" rating.
This is exactly why I'm against this type of legislation.
"The problem, for me personally, is not so much that children should not play games intended for adults, we all agree with that concept,..."
I don't agree. I don't believe that my child should be "sheltered" from the state of our real world. I believe that the child should be educated as to exactly WHY something is bad. I believe that it is my decision as to when I feel that my child is intelligent and responsible enough for that information instead of "the magical age of seventeen".
Laws like this would make me a criminal for holding that viewpoint. It grossly generalizes the mental capacity for children and what is acceptable information they can be exposed to. I know some 20 year-olds that should not be allowed near a blender.
And keep in mind that the state will determine what is acceptable for your child. It is a small jump from "protecting our children from violent images" to "protecting our children from X religious beliefs or Y political ideaology".
Actually the law would only fine retailers for selling the game, and nothing more.
It's not that the idea is unsound, it's how Yee is proposing how it is done. You don't get to single out the video game industry just because you don't like what they are doing. Why does Yee not attack the movie and music industries?
Yee is not using logic, nor facts in his approach. The, "I'm right, because I'm a politician and I know better because I am a former child psychologist..." bullshit just won't fly, other than with his supporters, and those who would rather not deal with reality.
Yes, there are unfortunately a lot of people in California who are incredibly ignorant of their constitutional rights-thankfully, the Federal judges keep things on the correct path when push comes to shove.
Yee talks out of both sides of his mouth-he crowed about defending college newspapers under their first amendment rights, but at the same time he attacks the video game industry in their attempts to defend THEIR first amendment rights from him. Yee needs to be smacked down-HARD.
This also may be a pride issue for Yee, and Schwarzenegger, since they have bet-or wasted, more accurately, tens of thousands of dollars in state money defending something that is by default, unconstitutional.
Yee (and Schwarzenegger to a lesser degree) will lose this fight, but I don't think he'll quit talking shit about the video game industry. Hopefully, the industry will never give him any lobbying money to change his attitude. I wish I could vote him out of office, but he operates in a different district than where I live in California...so I get to watch him spend my taxpayer dollars while he pursues his cause of self-righteousness.
Spot on. A law that says "thou shalt not sell rated material to minors" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Other countries do it, some people in the US want to do it, and it's about the only thing that the US could do to keep violent games away from kids. Such legislation even gets support in the GP comments.
The same thing could be said about obscenity laws. Porn users across the country would be up in arms if they tried to introduce the restrictions that currently exist. Unconstitutional! Harming nobody! Rar rar rar. Violent media (games and films) are a guilty pleasure that are designed for mature minds - those that understand that it's just fantasy - and could be compared to porn in that sense.
One of the main problems I see is the slippery slope argument, which seems to be something of a national pastime. I don't mean that in a bad way per se; the US is just accustomed to being extremely careful when it comes to the rules. Any nudging against holy texts like the Constitution is seen as a slippery slope to allowing people to marry toasters and banning green hair. The US bases so much of its ethos on personal freedom that any attempt to restrict it is seen as a bad thing.
Telling a child he can't buy Manhunt 2 is like telling a man he can't eat steak. Or something like that.
In case anyone jumps on me for hating America, I don't. The attitude to games in the mass media ia abhorrent and these campaigners deserve to fail. The sad fact is that suppose a law preventing the sale of rated media to minors *did* survive. It would be a matter of weeks before another teen was inspired by a game bought by someone else and then people would be campaigning to enhance the law further... By campaigning against the law in the first place people are trying to stop the problem from ever getting the chance to escalate.
Here are a few reasons:
-There’s no need for one. There are already ratings systems, parental controls, and vast amounts of easily accessible information.
-The gov’t has no right to tell a minor that a particular form of protected speech is inappropriate for him and he can’t have it. That’s a job reserved exclusively for a parent.
-Laws like this actually take away parental options.
-Games don’t harm children so there’s no reason to restrict their sales to them.
-Even if games did cause harm, these laws do nothing to prevent kids from being harmed by them.
-Slippery slope. Chilling effect. Whatever you want to call it. Retailers can’t be sure which games fall under the law so they won’t stock them. Developers will start censoring themselves.
Andrew Eisen
On the other hand I strongly believe that older kids and teenagers (especially those in high school) should have full First Amendment rights and the ability to form their own viewpoints based on unrestricted and uncensored access to ideas, information, messages and opinions presented in Free Speech materials.
Shielding young people right up to enter magical arbitrary age limit for adulthood here could very well be damaging as by the time they reach that magical arbitrary age their minds will be a blank (except for what the nanny state allows them to hear, read or view) and they would be unable to deal with the real world as we know it.
Also, if we are going to ban Free Speech materials to minors based solely on the fact that some parents find it unsuitable or inappropriate, we can't just ban violent video games or speech containing depictions of violence. We'd also have to ban the Holy Bible (as atheist, jewish and muslim parents don't want their children to get ahold of it), Harry Potter books and Charles Darwin's Origins of the Species (as religious fanatic parents don't want their children getting ahold of it), liberal based literature (as conservative parents don't want their children to get ahold of it), and vise versa for conservative literature and liberal parents.
In the end it should be the sole responsibility of the parents to keep their children away from Free Speech materials they don't want them to have.
havn't congressmen been removed for less in the past? thats lunacy
Problem is it would mean that they would need on-the-book laws about R rated movies, music with obscene lyrics, Playboy Magazines, Cinemax after Dark, and any other media format that contains subject matter in it worse than PG-13. Targeting only video games is a form of selective bigotry against gamers, as there are other things out there that as easier to get and far more graphically violent or have stronger sexual content that GTA, or Leisure Suit Larry, respectively.
Frankly, to me it seems like a cop-out by Yee to either make him look important, or to have him name be remembered for something.
I know what you mean, but, at the end of the day, it's your choice to make, not the Governments. It could be argued that Parents can always buy games for their children if they so wish, but, it doesn't remove the problem of 'tarring and feathering' that would take place if such a law were passed for only Video Games.
Personally, I think we'd all have to switch back to those law-abiding non cop-killing heroes of our elders.....
Like Billy the Kid or Jesse James....
Oh wait....
The reason I'm against this kind of legislation can be summed up in one sentence.
I am against any government telling me what I can and cannot view, read, play, or listen to.
If any ratings system is given power by any form of government, all they have to do to ban something is not give it a rating. Whatever medium has effectively been banned must then be edited, and in affect censored, in order to appease the governmental powers that be and then get a rating.
The answer to every call for this kind of legislation is simple, get parents up and moving. Get them educated on the ratings, get them talking with their kids about what games they do and do not approve of, and for God's sake, GET THEM TO STAND UP AND BE PARENTS WHEN THEY FIND OUT THEIR KIDS ARE PLAYING GAMES THEY DON'T APPROVE OF, instead of crying to some politician.
Probably not but you still can’t legislate it because it’s not the gov’t’s place to raise our children. How would young children get to a retailer with $60 plus tax anyway?
Andrew Eisen
Ummmm......... I guess videogames are a lot more deadly than drugs and alcohol. Since alcohol makes people drunk and cause thousands of car accidents every year. Oh did I forget to mention that drugs and alcohol cause cancer and videogames cause...well....NOTHING!!!!!!!!! I dont believe that videogames teach people how to kill and does nothing with your mind. It does not redu