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.
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
Ah found it: http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/708402/Video-Games-Law-Case-Could-Provide-a-Pathway-For-Limiting-Violent-Video-Games.html
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