Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

June 27, 2011 -

While we wait for California State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco) to issue a full statement via a press conference, PC Magazine manages to get the following quote from the man responsible for writing the law that the U.S. Supreme Court today ruled as unconstitutional.

California State Sen. Leland Yee said that today's ruling by the Supreme Court "put the interests of corporate America" before the interests of children.

"As a result of their decision, Wal-Mart and the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids' mental health and the safety of our community," Yee said. "It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children."

Yee went on to say that the eight years of legislative and legal battles were worth it because it raised the consciousness of this issue for many parents and grandparents, and has "forced the video game industry to do a better job at appropriately rating these games."

Taxpayers in California probably disagree with Yee, who encouraged the state to spend money to defend a law that was inevitably struck down. The only ones truly enriched by the legal battle and victory was the videogame industry because this ruling has set a precedent that can't be ignored by lawmakers daring to tackle the subject of violent videogame legislation.

Source: PC Magazine

Posted in

Comments

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

I think there should be civil penalties for violating the oath of office. By taking the oath, it's like signing a contract with the people you are going to be representing. It would keep people like Mr. Yee from wasting taxpayer money on crap like this.

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

I've played violent video games all my life and I am mentally heal... CRUSH KILL DESTROY!!!! 

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

"As a result of their decision, Wal-Mart and the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids' mental health and the safety of our community," Yee said. "It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children."

This, gentlemen, is an adult man making a tantrum when he is not getting what he wants.

So sorry, Mr. Yee, but this is what you get for not understanding (or not caring at all!) the law and constitution from your own country.

Game over.

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

Certainly predictable, just as JT was...

 

I haven't been here in awhile but has the whole "misguided" excuse a number of people used for Yee been done away with yet? Because this statement is just yet another example to show he's anything but.

 

I can't believe he's still in office... Oh wait.. His district includes San Francisco.... Okay I can.   Yeah, he would be perfect as mayor..

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

I still don't get his train of thought that leads to him saying, "infringing on the rights of parents."  That doesn't make any sense in this situation.  How does he see game developers and stores currently "infringing parent's rights"?

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

It is truely a mystery, how does forced parenting help a parents rights?  Might as well say that in order to preserve my right to bear arms I am forced to own a firearm even if I don't want one. 


Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

Dear Mr. Yee,

While the SCOTUS has been pretty guilty lately of putting corporate America ahead of the people of this country, this most certainly isn't one of those times.

But then, this was in no effing way about the "rights of parents". This was about demanding that the government do the parenting. Why not demand that the parents do the parenting for once?

Sincerely,

The Constitution

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

yee sucks.  and hes just sore that he lost!

 

HUGE supporter of the Video Game Industry and the ECA!

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

WILL YOU PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!!

-- http://pixelantes.blogspot.com/

Re: Leland Yee Cries over Brown v. EMA Decision

What a crybaby. That's all that needs to be said.

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: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

What the blah WHAT?! First he says the game industry is making millions at kid's expense, then turns around and says he forced the industry to regulate itself effectively!

Make up your mind, Yee. "I lost, but I still won, in a way." Can't have your cake and lose it too.

P.S. Love the photo: looks like he's about to cry!

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

I'd like to introduce him to Joe Lieberman.

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

Sometimes I miss Thomson,  at least he knew how to properly entertain us.

this was too predictable, almost no entertainment value.  Where are the days where Jack's  shenanigans would make us laugh until we cried.

 There should be a tribute, like on the anniversary that he lost job, with a complete list of exploits in cronological order so that we can recall how fortunate we were to have such a real life troll practicing law.

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

For me, I just go read the 9 part transcript every once in a while. It is condensed Jack, that old flavor we all miss.

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

If this issue was about profits, no one would even make M rated games since they don't sell as well as E rated games.

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

It wouldn't take too much effort on the behalf of the developers to create multi-rated games.  I, for one, want an option to turn off the rampant cussing that seems so prevalent in the games released today.  As an individual who doesn't use such language, I find it distracting to hear it exiting the mouth of the main character(s) and thus effectively ruins an otherwise decent storyline for me.  Such a "feature" would literally take a day or two to implement and would possibly allow for the ESRB to start doing multiple ratings for a single game.  It would be even better if Steamworks, for example, offered an API that automatically selected appropriate settings within the game to match a desired rating/level of each of profanity, sexual content, gore, etc.

Let me put this another way:  Developers, you are losing money because you can't be bothered to add a simple feature to your M-rated game.  So the super-simple question you have to ask yourself is, "Do I want to make more money or not?"

- Left4Dead

Why are zombies always eating brains? I want to see zombies that eat toes for a living. Undead-related pun intended.

- Left4Dead Why are zombies always eating brains? I want to see zombies that eat toes for a living. Undead-related pun intended.

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

Uh, yeah they do.  The top selling game from last year was rated M.  In fact, half of the top 10 games from last year were rated M.

There are a lot more E rated games made and therefore, they make up a larger percentage of total sales (44% vs. 24% for 2010).

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

Really from the data you 2 have stated I don't think you can say one way or the other.  I mean half the top games being rated M would suggest Mrated games do well... assuming all the others weren't entirely E rated. 

 

Then E rated games making more overall, really has nothing to do with quantity necessarily.  I really can't find any stats to sway me one way or the other really


Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

Perhaps Yee thinks only children play video games, and it's a multi-billion dollar industry simply because kids somehow have money.

I think he just needs to cut his kids' allowance. That might solve everything in his eyes. 

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

If he even is a parent, and I doubti t would unless he could mandate that parents cut it all over the state.

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

1.  Video games do not negatively affect kids' mental health.  There's no evidence of this.

2.  Video games do not jeopardize the safety of our community.  There's no evidence of this.

3.  The rights of parents are not being squelched.

4.  The well-being of children is not being affected.

5.  Games were appropriately rated in the first place.  This brouhaha has changed nothing along those lines.

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

While I certainly agree, the ruling seems to be rather broader than that:

"But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test."

I read that as saying that even if there WERE strong evidence of games having a negative social impact, it wouldn't matter, they're still covered.

Which is a good thing; otherwise we'd just be playing this same song and dance again in a few years against people citing research which they claim supports their claim that games harm children.  This way we don't even have to worry about demonstrating that the research is flawed -- at least, not in court.

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

There is evidence about 2, just not evidence they want to use. 

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

What evidence is there that video games jeopardize community safety?

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

What Elle said.


I'm sure you've seen the graph that shows violent games' release date overlaid on crime rates.

 

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

Sure.  Even posted a GP story on it back in the day.

That said, I hope you understand my confusion when you replied to "Video games do not jeopardize the safety of our community.  There's no evidence of this." with "There is evidence about [that]."

 

Andrew Eisen

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

I think he means the contrary statistics that show that youth violent crime has decreased with the rise of video games. 

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

In fact, in the majority opinion, SCOTUS pointed out how the law had conflicting interests, split between trying to "protect children" and "assist parents in making the choice for their children" (paraphrasing). Further, they stated that the law didn't do much to help parents anyway, since many violent games purchased for children are done so by parents who simply don't care. If the law's purpose was really to protect children, it would have to do more than force a parent to make that choice.

Yee seems to think every parent in his state will somehow feel empowered by his legislation, and 100% of them would make what he thinks is the morally responsible choice. Given the track record of video game retailers as noted by the FTC in thwarting children from purchasing M-rated titles, and yet the prevalance of children playing M-rated games online, there's really nothing that law would have changed except to make some retailers pay fines occasionally.

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

I take it Yee didn't read the decision- especially the part about how well the ESRB voluntary system is more effective than other industries.  This is the type of person who wants to run a major city? 

Re: Leland Yee Reaction to Brown v. EMA Decision

My guess is all he needed to know is that he lost.

And it's only him who lost. He can keep bullshitting, but was this a vanity project for HIM, nothing more.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
Matthew WilsonIf you have not read http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/ you should. It is a bit stats heavy, but worth the read.04/16/2014 - 2:04pm
Matthew Wilsonthe issue is when is doesn't work it can screw over millions in new york city's case. more often than not it is better to let the free market run its course without market distortion.04/16/2014 - 9:36am
NeenekoTrue, and overdone stagnation is a problem. It is a tricky balance. It does not help that when it does work, no one notices. Most people here have benifited from rent controls and not even realized it.04/16/2014 - 9:23am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/04/15/riaa_files_civil_suit_against_megaupload04/16/2014 - 8:48am
ZippyDSMleeEither way you get stagnation as people can not afford the prices they set.04/16/2014 - 8:47am
Neenekowell, specifically it helps people already living there and hurts people who want to live there instead. As for 'way more hurt', majorities generally need less legal protection. yes it hurt more people then it helped, it was written for a minority04/16/2014 - 8:30am
MaskedPixelantehttp://torrentfreak.com/square-enix-drm-boosts-profits-and-its-here-to-stay-140415/ Square proves how incredibly out of touch they are by saying that DRM is the way of the future, and is here to stay.04/16/2014 - 8:29am
james_fudgeUnwinnable Weekly Telethon playing Metal Gear http://www.twitch.tv/rainydayletsplay04/16/2014 - 8:06am
ConsterTo be fair, there's so little left of the middle class that those numbers are skewing.04/16/2014 - 7:42am
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician