With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, What Will California Do?

May 13, 2009 -

The Sacramento Bee laments the big bucks paid out by California to reimburse the video game industry's legal costs in fighting the state's 2005 video game law, and wonders if there are more expenses to come.

The video game measure, proposed by State Sen. Leland Yee (D) and signed into law by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, has been - so far - held to be unconstitutional by the federal courts. The Bee notes that the tally of California's payments to the video game industry now exceeds $382,000. That figure does not include the state's costs for its own legal team.

The crucial question - which must be decided by May 20th - is whether California will appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court. Adam Keigwin, Yee's chief of staff, commented on the pending decision:

That would be a small price to pay to save children and to give parents a tool. At what cost do you stop doing what you think is right?


Comments

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, What

They don't care how much money it takes, the government knows that all they have to do is raise taxes and it's covered...


Sortableturnip's Law: As an online discussion of video game violence grows longer, the probability of a comparison involving Jack Thompson approaches 1

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, What

Yee sinks a level closer to JT every time he's mentioned on GP.

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

It is NOT the government's job to be a nanny or a parent. We have the ESRB that informs parents of the contents of the game. It's up to the parent to decide if the game is okay for their child.

This just smacks of trying to overdo something to show that they "care". "Look at me! There's already a rating system that parents can use, but we'll go even further and try and be the parents for all children!"

You're an enemy of the First Amendment, Mr. Yee.

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

"That would be a small price to pay to save children and to give parents a tool."

Except for that niggling little fact that this law won't save children (nothing to save them from, after all) and is less of a tool and more of an excuse for crap parents to pay even less attention to their kids.

"At what cost do you stop doing what you think is right?"

That depends on how much repeatedly being proven wrong is worth.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

Completely off-topic, but I am reminded of the time the D.C. District Council and the District went into a three-day furor because a white official accused a black official of being "niggardly."

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

"That would be a small price to pay to save children and to give parents a tool."

Yes, it would be a small price to save children.  However, it's a large price to pay to do absolutely nothing, which is what this will do.  Even ignoring the fact that the bill would accomplish nothing if it was passed, there's the simple fact that it won't.  All this appeal will do is land us right where we started, but another .3M short.

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, What

"That would be a small price to pay to save children and to give parents a tool. At what cost do you stop doing what you think is right?"

Why don't your try asking the people who will be paying for it, as that is sure as hell not you.

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, What

At what cost do you stop doing what you think is right?

Maybe it's just me, but don't you stop once you've been shot down multiple times because what you're trying to do is illegal? Persistence is only a virtue when you actually have a chance of succeeding; otherwise it's called stupidity.

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, What

I have a feeling they will never stop trying to censor video games. If they did parents would not be happy. I wish the Supreme Court would just tell them that video games are free speech.

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, What

Give it some time. People will find something else to freak out about, and politicians will change their tune when people who grew up playing video games make up 70%+ percent of the voting population.

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, What

Can they even afford to bring this to the supreme court?

http://www.magicinkgaming.com/

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

'That would be a small price to pay to save children and to give parents a tool. At what cost do you stop doing what you think is right?'

You stop when you take a step back to look at the bigger picture, realise that perhaps everybody criticising you deserves to have their reasoning examined, realise you are in the wrong, and realise that the parents already have a tool (game ratings already on the boxes) to 'protect them'.

Oh and then you realise that  $382,000 you just wasted could have done an awful lot to advertise game ratings and improve awareness.

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, What

leland yee = asian jack thompson

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

Parents already have a tool.

He's called Leland Yee.

 

Besides, I wonder if the price would be so 'small' if it wasn't other people's money they were spending?

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

If there's ANYTHING that needs a '3 strikes and you're out' rule its endlessly repeated legislation like this. 3 failed attempts should disqualify anything resembling that legislation from being passed for 5 years.

 

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

It's the "resembling that legislation" part of your suggestion with which idiots like Jack "I'll Just Re-Cast My Old Law As a New 'Truth in Advertising' Law" Thompson will have a field day.

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, What

"That would be a small price to pay to save children and to give parents a tool. At what cost do you stop doing what you think is right?"

 

Hmm... I don't know, how about after you and your cronies have been told half a dozen times by various courts, including the SCOTUS that this kind of legislation is against your own constitution? That work for you?

Idiot...

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

At what cost, you ask? I would risk prison, humiliation, and even execution for what I believe in. That's why I will fight Schwartzeneggar to the death.

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, What

To be fair, SCOTUS has yet to issue any ruling for or against this kind of legislation. So really they only have the rulings of 10 Federal Courts.

E. Zachary Knight
Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

"At what cost do you stop doing what you think is right?" -- Adam Keigwin

Mr. Keigwin asks the wrong question. The better question is: At what point do you stop incurring costs by doing what you think is right? The answer is simple: The point at which your costs exceed any benefits which may inur from doing what you think is right. And the State of California passed that point a long time ago.

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

There is an even simpler answer to that question. When what you think is right has been deemed time and time again as unconstitutional. 

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, What

The problem is that this law will not save children, nor will it give parents a tool that doesn't already exist. Parents already have the ability to know exactly what is in every game that they buy or allow their children to buy, and have the ability to block certain ratings from every new major system that exists today. Not only that, many retailers voluntarily follow the ESRB ratings, which are proudly displayed on front and back of every video game sold now, negating the need for other types of stickers. Requiring stickers that say "18" on it is compelled speech, which is unconstitutional. Not only that, it is hypocritical to want to require these on video games but not DVDs and CDs that could be inappropriate to minors. Besides, how does one determine what is or is not appropriate for minors? The description given in the bill is unconstitutionally vague, and doesn't meet up to the standards set by the Miller case is determining what is or is not protected speech. Like the district court judge said, just because a person is under the age of 18 does not mean that they do not have any rights concerning their exposure to other's speech.

I could go on and on, but this is a summation of the opinions that I've seen represented here before. I would like to say that I disagree with the Miller case, and that I think basically all free speech is fine and dandy, but from a legal standpoint in today's American politics, that is what we must go on.

-If an apple a day keeps the doctor away....what happens when a doctor eats an apple?-

-Optimum est pati quod emendare non possis-It is best to endure what you cannot change-

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

Why do you think that obscene speech as defined by Miller should receive constitutional protection? Obscene speech serves no useful purpose in the exchange of political ideas. How is the political process weakened by its absence?   

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

Because authorities will just label speech they don't like as obscene???

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

That's unlikely. Miller sets forth a multi-part set of requirements which must be met in order to deem a particular sort of speech obscene. The authorities can't just say, "It's obscene because I say it's obscene." They have to actually demonstrate how it passes the Miller test.

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

Obscene Speech is banned solely under the basis of offensiveness. It is my view that the state has no business barring Speech solely under the basis that it is offensive. Obscenity laws are the most rediculous exemption to the First Amentment. As for the belief that it serves no useful purpose, well, what is trash with no merit to some may be treasure to others. Many video games, movies and books contain nothing in the way of political ideas yet are still protected speech. People may be able to gain some idea, information, message, viewpoint or opinion from viewing, listening or reading it.

"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

"No law means no law" - Supreme Court Justice Hugo Black on the First Amendment

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

Speech cannot be banned simply because it is subjectively offensive. Obscenity is unprotected because it has no value in the exchange of ideas (like fighting words--you're not protected by the First Amendment if you call someone's mother a whore to their face for example). However, obscenity is also unprotected because there is a presumption of sorts that it is harmful to children and unwilling audiences, even though violence has never carried that status and hopefully never will. This presumption has existed for hundreds of years, and it was only fairly recently that the Court acknowledged that sexually explicit material may warrant protection in some instances, hence the Miller standard.

To JDKJ, there are other reasons why certain speech is protected that could give rise to the argument that obscenity should be as well. A student of the First Amendment is well aware of the "safety valve" rationale, as well as the value of artistic expression. Reasonable minds could differ.

www.gameslaw.net

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

If the speech has value as artistic expression, wouldn't it fail Miller, which defines obscenity as, among other things, speech lacking any artistic value?

And let's bear in mind that the original intent of the Framers was to give Gaming Observer something about which to beat his gums together.

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

If the work, taken as a whole, has serious artistic value then it's not obscene.

But to answer your question about why someone would think a work that is obscene should be protected even though it lacks value for the political process, the self-fulfillment and safety valve rationales still hold up.

www.gameslaw.net

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, ...

Because reasonable minds can differ, I'll do the reasonable thing and differ.

The theory that free speech functions as a "safety valve" for a society, without which certain veiwpoints, if suppressed, would merely continue to enjoy discourse underground, where they could fester and breed discontent and malcontents and, therefore, forment destabalizing elements within a society doesn't, I believe, bear much relevance to obscene speech.

As Justice Brandeis noted in Whitney, it is society's precieved "grievances" and proposed "remedies" which are in need of free and open discourse in order to avoid the creation of forces of revolt. Is any speech which would pass Miller's obscenity test the sort of speech which involves societal grievances and remedies and which, if suppressed, would lead to insurrection? I'd think that because obscenity holds such little value as a subject of public discourse and, as Miller held, appeals mostly to our purient interests only, it isn't the sort of speech which is likely to create discontent and malcontents if suppressed and, therefore, forment destabalizing elements within society. I would assume that not enough of the society values obscenity enough for that to even be a remote possibility. 

Re: With U.S. Supreme Court Appeal Deadline Approaching, What

For a state that's had trouble with its budget for years, $382,000 is not chump change, as that idiot Keigwin would have everyone think otherwise. Illinois had to pay close to $511,000 in legal fees for their bill championed by a corrupt governor who was impeached earlier this year.

And besides that, thinking you're "right" while ignoring the cold hard fact that they've been proven wrong numerous times by the courts and by opposing research shows Keigwin and Yee to be delusional.

If California had any brains, they'd give up while they're way behind since there's no guarantee that the Supreme Court will even hear the appeal and it's a long shot since the Supreme Court only hears 2% of all the cases that come before them.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Pelicans. Solidarity for the Saints = No retreat, no surrender. 2013 = Saints' revenge on the NFL. Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Andrew EisenSleaker - Who the heck are you reading that is claiming "all gamers are bad," we "need to pass laws or judgement on all gamers," that if "you self-identify as a Gamer, you're immediately the problem," or that gamers are "obligated to stop harassment"?09/20/2014 - 9:44pm
erthwjimhe swatted more than just krebs, I think he swatted 30 people http://krebsonsecurity.com/2014/05/teen-arrested-for-30-swattings-bomb-threats/09/20/2014 - 9:31pm
Craig R.Btw, the guy who swatted security expert Brian Krebs? He got picked up recently. It can be done.09/20/2014 - 8:55pm
Craig R.Such things are not done in a vacuum... hence why the 4chan and other logs show what fools you've all been, tricked into doing the trolls' work09/20/2014 - 8:49pm
Sleaker@Technogeek - How do you call someone out that anonymously calls in a SWAT team, or sends threats to people?09/20/2014 - 7:04pm
Technogeek"It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so." I'd say you're certainly obligated to call them out when you see it happening.09/20/2014 - 5:17pm
SleakerNow if you disagree with anything in my last 2 posts then we obviously have a difference in world view, and wont come to any sort of agreement. I'm fine with that, maybe some people aren't?09/20/2014 - 5:09pm
SleakerIt also doesn't mean that just because a news outlet says that Gamers are the problem and you self-identify as a Gamer, you're immediately the problem. It also doesn't mean you're obligated to stop harassment from all gamers that are doing so.09/20/2014 - 4:59pm
SleakerJust to re-iterate: People getting harassed is wrong. Just because someone is harassed by so called 'gamers' doesn't mean that all gamers are bad. nor does it mean that you need to pass laws or judgement on all gamers.09/20/2014 - 4:56pm
SleakerAnd furthermore just because someone doesn't 'crusade against the evil' that doesn't make them the problem. You can have discussion with those around you. There's a thing called sphere of influence.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
Sleaker@Conster - one person getting harassed is a 'problem' only so far as the harassee's are doing it. Just because a select few people choose to act like this doesn't make it widespread. Nor does it immediately make everyone responsible to put an end to it.09/20/2014 - 4:54pm
james_fudgeno worries09/20/2014 - 4:15pm
TechnogeekI misread james' comment as "we can't have a debate without threatening" there at first. Actually wound up posting a shout about death threats and "kill yourself" not technically being the same thing before I realized.09/20/2014 - 3:59pm
james_fudgeDon't hit me *cowers behind Andrew*09/20/2014 - 3:20pm
ConsterYou take that back right now, james, or else. *shakes fist menacingly*09/20/2014 - 3:00pm
james_fudgeOur community is awesome. We can have a debate without threatening to kill each other.09/20/2014 - 2:50pm
Andrew EisenNo one's crossed a line but I just want to remind you all to keep discussions civil.09/20/2014 - 1:54pm
Craig R.tldr: I'm a gamer, and imo those who support GamerGate should feel free to take a flying leap off a cliff.09/20/2014 - 1:27pm
Craig R.Not only that, I'm pretty sure that if actual studies were done, you'd still deny them, Sleaker. After all, it's not what you'd want to hear to support your rose-colored view of GamerGate.09/20/2014 - 1:18pm
Craig R.There IS an issue. Nor do we need a study to show that if you deny it then you're part of the problem.09/20/2014 - 1:17pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician