Activision Blizzard Policy Maker Rails Against California Law

October 11, 2010 -

George Rose, Activision Blizzard’s Chief Public Policy Officer penned a column for the Orange County Register in which he called the California law at the heart of Schwarzenegger vs. EMA “onerous,” and "unnecessary.”

Rose claimed that a SCOTUS approval of the law would “hijack” the First Amendment rights of young people “by unjustifiably creating a special exception to unprotected free speech not only for video games, but any other form of expression.”

He also worried that the law would put “innocent store clerks at serious legal and financial risk,” all for a law that is “already moot.”

Rose explained:

Our industry has in place nationwide a program that costs taxpayers nothing and that is better and more effective at making sure kids purchase age-appropriate games than anything the government is likely to ever come up with.

Rose also wondered how lawmakers and politicians would determine what exactly constitutes a violent game, writing:

Knowing state bureaucrats, such decisions are likely to be consistently made on their extensive educated experience with violence and social and cultural merits of works of art.

After raining further praise on both the industry and ESRB’s efforts in enforcing ratings at retail, Rose took a few shots at California’s financial difficulties:

So what more could California want than a successful, privately funded program, especially when the state sometimes has trouble making payroll? California is a state with a history of budget shortfalls, IOUs, furloughed workers, closed DMV offices, shuttered courts, squeezed school districts where children wait weeks to start school, pummeled university budgets, stretched health care resources and cities without enough money to properly fund their police and fire needs. They all can use state dollars that would be wasted here.


Comments

Re: Activision Blizzard Policy Maker Rails Against ...

urgh we need something in place to limit the governments power seriously

Re: Activision Blizzard Policy Maker Rails Against ...

We do, it's called the Supreme Court of the United States, and they're going to be laying the smack down to this bullshit law soon enough.

Re: Activision Blizzard Policy Maker Rails Against ...

One thing they should mention was that those in power have no problem eliminating the rights they themselves od not use.

Re: Activision Blizzard Policy Maker Rails Against ...

Having a government bureaucrats censoring games seeing which are obscene filth is a slap in the face to freedom. I don't want state offials saying what games can be sold and which can not.

Re: Activision Blizzard Policy Maker Rails Against ...

Actually they'd be determining which games can be sold to minors, though that too is neither Constitutionally sound or justifiably necessary. And, as we can have no doubt, it would inevitably lead to what kinds of games can be sold to anyone, perhaps not directly, but through the fear of putting out any game that may offend the powers that be. That's why this can't be allowed to happen. Fans decide what's entertaining, not some slimey asshole politician just looking to get elected to a higher office.

Re: Activision Blizzard Policy Maker Rails Against ...

Wow, he really stuck it to them. Awesome.

I especially like the comments on how the industry does a better job of regulating itself than the government ever could, and how this law is a such a serious misallocution of resources that the state of CA just doesn't have. Those two key points should've killed the bill long before it ever made it to the governor's desk. And the fact that the powers that be in CA are fighting so damn hard to hold onto that bullshit law is just mind-boggling.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Did Microsoft pay too much ($2.5 billion) for Minecraft developer Mojang?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
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
Sleakersimply oust people that do harass others.09/20/2014 - 11:34am
Sleaker@Conster - I can say the same thing if you think there's been more than a handful. Until there's an actual study on rates no one can claim to know how widespread the incidence of harassment is. Thus the best we can do is 'there might be an issue' and...09/20/2014 - 11:33am
ConsterSleaker: if you think there's only been "a handful of" incidents, you have your head stuck *somewhere* - I'm assuming it's sand.09/20/2014 - 5:38am
prh99Most of it's agitprop clickbait anyway.09/20/2014 - 5:27am
prh99A good reason to stop reading reguardless of view pointhttp://www.theguardian.com/media/2013/apr/12/news-is-bad-rolf-dobelli.09/20/2014 - 5:22am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician