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

Will an M rating hurt Batman: Arkham Knight's sales?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Matthew WilsonThis is a interesting long form article about xbox live since halo 2. http://www.polygon.com/a/the-second-generation-of-xbox-live/page-102/26/2015 - 6:01pm
ConsterJust take pride in joining the group of net neutrality nations, even if it's only temporarily.02/26/2015 - 1:24pm
Matthew Wilsonfcc passed net neutrality. now lets hope they dont screw up the details. ps I am not holding my breath on that one.02/26/2015 - 1:03pm
ZippyDSMleeIf I could stand blizz I would do what I do in Facebook and use zippy, they can screw off if they do not like it.02/26/2015 - 9:31am
Michael ChandraAh. Now THIS is a good reason to not want to enable RealID: Anyone with your email can try adding you as a friend, leading to complications if they find out you're using it but declining their request.02/26/2015 - 5:15am
Michael Chandra(Also, why the hell would you not announce this?? Now people think they got a bug.)02/26/2015 - 5:11am
Michael ChandraThe only argument against the second that I've read so far is 'I'm afraid I'd accidentally RealID instead of BattleTag someone'. How secure are the RealID databases anyway?02/26/2015 - 5:10am
Michael ChandraIt's a silly argument detracting from the two main issues: Is this safe (so RealID only enabled but not given out through twitter in any way) and is it problematic to force people to 'use' RealID without actually sharing it with others?02/26/2015 - 5:10am
Michael ChandraGot to love how people immediately bring up 'yeah I don't see a problem with using my real name, it's not as if people can find me with it'. Maybe not you, but that doesn't mean others cannot be found.02/26/2015 - 5:08am
Michael ChandraSo apparently it's because they wanted to tie it to Parental Controls and didn't want to make a separate parental control for it due to that taking effort.02/26/2015 - 5:03am
ZippyDSMleeWhy do they have billing account name and user name confused? Never understood that....02/26/2015 - 3:29am
Matthew Wilsonhttp://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-02-25/google-s-computers-learn-to-play-video-games-by-themselves that is fairly impressive.02/25/2015 - 9:21pm
MechaCrashA universal ID among all of your characters across all games is a good idea. Making it use your real name instead of a screen name of your choosing is a horrible idea.02/25/2015 - 5:45pm
Michael ChandraThey also said posting on the forums was optional. To be honest, I really do NOT get why you'd introduce a new feature, brag about it and then secretly put a lock on it.02/25/2015 - 4:52pm
InfophileTwitter integration is a lot more optional than the forums (which was the last place they tried to enforce real names). So I don't see the backlash being as strong this time, especially since they aren't adding the requirement to an existing service02/25/2015 - 12:59pm
Michael ChandraIn the Real ID info, it's an optional thing for friends. Enforcing its usage for tweeting seems rather unnecessary.02/25/2015 - 12:14pm
ZippyDSMleenothing like a a few crashes inbetween moveing 400gb of data....02/25/2015 - 12:09pm
Michael ChandraOkay, so Blizzard's memory officially only goes back four years, as they cannot remember the backlash last time they tried forcing people to use their real names.02/25/2015 - 12:09pm
IvresseOnly context I can provide at the moment is the response from Blizz customer service: https://twitter.com/BlizzardCSEU_EN/status/57060293549676544402/25/2015 - 11:31am
PHX Corp@Craig R. I'm still testing Windows 10 Technical Preview as a consumer in advance of the final build02/25/2015 - 11:30am
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician