Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

November 4, 2010 -

California State Senator Leland Yee is the architect of the law at the center of Schwarzenegger vs. EMA and attended Tuesday’s oral arguments in front of the Supreme Court.

Reacting to the proceedings, Yee’s office issued a statement indicating that the Senator was “pleased” with the discussion in the nation’s highest court, and was particularly taken with the comments of Justice Stephen Breyer, who, Yee said, “… clearly understands the intent and need for our legislation to limit the sale of excessively violent video games to children.”

Yee Continued:

Several of the Justices rightfully concluded that parents need and deserve a tool to help raise healthy kids, that interactive video games are different than passive media such as movies and music, that many of these games have gratuitous violence inappropriate for minors, and that there is a compelling state interest in protecting children.
 
As the Court has often ruled in favor of limiting children’s access to potentially harmful material, I am hopeful that a majority of the Justices will declare California’s law as constitutional or at least provide the legal guidance for future public policy.


Comments

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

He does seem to be skirting around just how a violent act in a game is more wrong-bad than the exact same act potrayed in a movie.  And if it is some how worse for games then why was I not able to get more than five minutes into the movie Saw 6 when I've not been squicked in the same way by any game.

-Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person's fear of their own freedom-

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

Well the argument he returns to is the "interactive" nature of video games.  However even if you take media violence research at face value without worrying about the poor validity of it all, there's no evidence the "interactive" nature produces any higher effects.

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

There may be some parents in the world who are ill-fit to raise children well, but I can NOT stand to hear another politician talk about the government knowing how best to raise a child, or in their words, minor--How best to dehumanize a human being by labelling them with cold, arbitrary terms of limitation. It's sickening. It's eugenics and follows both Platonic and Prussian ideals of a militaristic state. It started with mandatory schooling (Not to be confused with education) and just as was inevitable, it's been reaching firmly into the household itself.

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

"Several of the Justices rightfully concluded that parents need and deserve a tool to help raise healthy kids"

Granted, but does raising healthy kids have anything to do with violent video games?

"... that interactive video games are different than passive media such as movies and music"

Which doesn't necessarily mean they should be treated any differently under the law.

"... that many of these games have gratuitous violence inappropriate for minors,"

Which is different from them being harmful to minors. Appropriateness is a social construct, not a legal one.

"... and that there is a compelling state interest in protecting children."

But not necessarily from video games.

"Justice Stephen Breyer … clearly understands the intent and need for our legislation to limit the sale of excessively violent video games to children."

That's what you say. What were Breyer's specific comments to that effect?

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

Apparently he missed the part that California should start a State Bureau of Censorship. 

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

I'm sure hes ok with that.

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

Given that it took him so long to react while game industry groups reacted positively immediately, it's likely that he just cherry picked some facts and twisted them around to make it look like the hearing was favorable to him.

Yee was disappointed anyway.  If you look at Kotaku's video interview with him on the courthouse steps, he repeatedly dodges the question of judges being skeptical of California's law and regurgitates his argument verbatim.  It's also worth noting that Yee has said he is "hopeful" about this case half a dozen times.  Just to translate he doesn't have anything to bank on but hope.  Which doesn't win you legal cases.

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

Yeah, given Yee's apparent cognitive dissonance and that he's expressed confidence the bill would pass in the preivious trials, only to be "shocked" when it didn't is pretty congruent with this.

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

Took him awhile to comment.  Naturally neither side is going to want to claim victory in advance, or seem overly confidence.  and of course much could still happen.  Who knows what SCOTUS will ultimately decide.

Nonetheless I have to admit I'm more optimistic than I was, say, a month ago.  I think the worst that might happen is SCOTUS might kill the current law, but leave the door open for a more narrowly tailored law (similar to Stevens).  I hope they kill it outright with no open door though.

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

I think how the ruling goes(leaving the door open or closed) will depend on who's writing the majority opinion.

If the vote goes how the oral arguments went(with Scalia, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, Kagan, Kennedy, and likely Thomas siding with EMA/ESA), then Scalia(the senior justice) would get to choose who writes the opinion if he decides not to write it himself(unless Chief Justice Roberts chooses to side with EMA/ESA instead).

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.

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.

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

I'm not seeing Roberts siding with EMA. I'm guessing Scalia writes the opinion himself, or Sotomayor (the next-most vocal against California). Judging by First One at One First, I see a chance Kennedy may write a concurrence.

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

I didn't think so either(just putting a possibility out there).

I do agree that Scalia will likely write the opinion himself.

Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.

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.

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

Agreed with above.  Only thing to add is Roberts *might* side with ESA/EMA only because he sees the way the wind is blowing and wants to decide who writes the majority opinion.  I've heard he is not beyond doing that.

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

I almost want Roberts to dissent hearing that. He'll leave the door open for more narrow legislation, and I don't want to give Yee any opportunity to go back to the drawing board. If Scalia writes the majority, and he does so in a way consistent with his grilling of Morazzini, he will condemn in the strongest possible language the idea that violence can be regulated like obscenity.

 

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

I disagree completely.  I think there's a good chance that Roberts would side with the ESA/EMA because of the inherent First Amendment issue at hand in the first place.  He's not usually one to restrict free speech.

---

With the first link, the chain is forged.

--- With the first link, the chain is forged.

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

I think after the supreme court Laugh-a-rama, I beleve, Best case senario, We'll win and there will be No more video game laws, The worst case, SCOTUS would strike it down but like stevens. leave the door open for a future Narrowly taliored law(Which results in the gaming populace becoming vigilant over Future game laws)

That Being said 6-3(scalia or kennedy writes the majority opinion) or 7-2(if Roberts decides to side with us, But have scalia write the majority opinion instead) for ESA/EMA

When Adam sessler Talked to leland yee, Yee conceded his law will not pass constitutional muster, due to apparent vagueness

Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

America has just became its own version of the Jerry Springer Show after a bizarre moment in Florida involving a carnival worker.

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

Wait, wait...what...where was this that Yee conceded that?

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

G4tv.com

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/708431/Feedback----Kinect-Edition.html

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/708401/Adam-Sessler-Talks-Supreme-Cour...

Listen to sessler's getting interviewed there and you know what I mean

Watching JT on GP is just like watching an episode of Jerry springer only as funny as the fights

America has just became its own version of the Jerry Springer Show after a bizarre moment in Florida involving a carnival worker.

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

I´m afraid that is what justices are expecting to someone to create a law more specific than California made, because on their last comments that´s the impression they left on me.

------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

“… clearly understands the intent and need for our legislation to limit the sale of excessively violent video games to children.”

Clearly, because playing violent games is harmful to kids so we should prevent them from buying them - by far the least common method of kids getting their hands on such games.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

To be fair, that's the same logic used with alcohol - *drinking* alcohol is harmful to kids so we should prevent them from *buying* it.  The main problem lies in the proof that "playing violent games is harmful to kids", which nobody's yet seen.

Re: Yee's Reaction to SCOTUS Arguments

As the Court has often ruled in favor of limiting children’s access to potentially harmful material, I am hopeful that a majority of the Justices will declare California’s law as constitutional or at least provide the legal guidance for future public policy.

Even if the parents were in need of a better tool to choose what games can their children to play, I´m pretty sure that the justices know that you are not the one who will give them that tool because of your massive failure of bill.

------------------------------------------------------------ My DeviantArt Page (aka DeviantCensorship): http://www.darkknightstrikes.deviantart.com

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Will Code Avarice's Paranautical Activity make its way back onto Steam?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
prh99Honestly I've never liked Gawker, and considering their own behavior the self righteous indignation in the wake of GG rings a bit hollow. If my email causes them to lose money I will not feel even a twinge of guilt.10/23/2014 - 1:00pm
Papa MidnightNeo_DrKefka: Till outlets such as IGN and GameSpot so much as even acknowledge the mere existence of "GamerGate", I highly doubt it will affect their modus operandi anytime in the future - near or otherwise.10/23/2014 - 12:26pm
Neo_DrKefkaWhat GamerGate is essentially doing whether people like it or not its going to change the gamingmedia but inturn its also going to replace some outlets & practice the same wrongs they claim they fought against. Its happening already look at TheRalphRetort10/23/2014 - 12:18pm
Neo_DrKefkaIf a company claims it supports the Klan or another offensive organization than the advertiser needs to make sure they're brand is not tainted so they pull they're ads. One side does not determine the right to determine what is universally offensive.10/23/2014 - 12:14pm
Neo_DrKefkaActions have consequences however. If you do a Bioware and insult EA's customers would you be suprised if they lost advertisers and customers? Advertisers are not giving money to charity to they putting ads to make money.10/23/2014 - 12:13pm
Matthew Wilsonwhile I disagree with people pushing pressure on advertisers, consumers do not have many other options to show there disagreements with a article or writer. if people are going to do it, it should be for somthing much worse then that guy did.10/23/2014 - 12:10pm
Neo_DrKefkaNow they are about KingofPol & InternetAristocrat making streams that are bait and switch Streams that claims they are about GG but are about them getting drunk and them making fun of Autistic people10/23/2014 - 12:09pm
Neo_DrKefkahttp://tinyurl.com/nhlbgq8 These people some of them are using GamerGate to prop there careers up. GamerGate streams used to be about ideas of change and solutions to problems.10/23/2014 - 12:09pm
Neo_DrKefkaI believe the message of #GamerGate but I do not believe in the Cult of Personality that has formed. Where sites like TechRaptor gained exposure and they are a great site. Sites like TheRalphReport are using this movement for there own personal gain.10/23/2014 - 12:05pm
ZippyDSMleeSo has the whole GG thing become toxic to the point its time to move on yet?10/23/2014 - 11:54am
prh99As for GG, I am surprised they haven't pulled out every 4chan spawned mob and script kiddie's favorite tool, LOIC to DDoS their foes. Or maybe they did and I missed it.10/23/2014 - 11:38am
BillIn his article Max says "I've been told that we've lost thousands of dollars already, and could potentially lose thousands more, if not millions."10/23/2014 - 11:25am
BillJames, do you think new advertisers won't bring this up when negotiating Ad rates? From a business standpoint, if I were to advertise on Gawker I would point to this and be pretty firm on lower rates.10/23/2014 - 11:21am
prh99Had my say, what they do after that is their business. Though calling your current advertisers "craven idiots" and "pusillanimous morons" probably isn't all that smart if you are going to complain about lost revenue from pulled ads.10/23/2014 - 11:18am
james_fudgeand when they do they will innoculate themselves from this stuff before the deal is even signed10/23/2014 - 11:02am
james_fudgewhen you do that much traffic you can always replace advertisers, guys10/23/2014 - 11:02am
prh99I helped him out and emailed Gawkers advertisers with the message "This is how Gawker covers you when they disagree with you". Not necessarily as support for GG but he is just down right insulting. 10/23/2014 - 10:48am
BillI think he got rolled twice. They made him mad enough to insult a possible advertiser. Other advertisers are going to notice this. It may be cathartic for him, but it's not good business.10/23/2014 - 9:17am
Billhttp://gawker.com/how-we-got-rolled-by-the-dishonest-fascists-of-gamergat-164949657910/23/2014 - 9:14am
Andrew EisenMarvel also shows it understands that once it leaks, it's out there and went ahead and officially released the trailer. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmeOjFno6Do10/22/2014 - 9:36pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician