Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

California Violent Gaming Bills Fail To Advance

Posted by simoniker on from the game-over dept.

Thanks to Reuters/Yahoo for its article discussing the failure to progress of two California violent videogame bills, since they "failed to clear a committee of California's state Assembly, killing them for 2004 unless the committee changes its mind." However, "One bill, which would expand the definition of 'harmful matter to children' to include certain types of violent games, received a favorable 5-1 vote, while the second, regulating how some games are displayed in stores, got a 3-1 vote" - but "both needed 7 votes in favor to be approved." Bill sponsor Leland Yee has released a statement claiming: "I am deeply disturbed that money ruled the day here in Sacramento... Rather than protecting our children and giving our parents a tool to help raise healthy kids, the multi-billion dollar entertainment industry was allowed to shoot down necessary legislation."

7 of 48 comments (clear)

  1. This sounds familiar... by Gothic_Walrus · · Score: 4, Insightful
    "I am deeply disturbed that money ruled the day here in Sacramento... Rather than protecting our children and giving our parents a tool to help raise healthy kids, the multi-billion dollar entertainment industry was allowed to shoot down necessary legislation."

    How is this any different from other special interest groups? We see laws shot down by the movie industry, by the NRA, by Grandmothers Against Rubber Sheets, and no one says anything at all.

    When the law concerns video games, however, it's "a tool to raise healthy kids" and "necessary legislation," and the media makes a big deal about the bill's failure to pass?

    Heck, as far as I know, the video game industry wasn't even fighting the law. I haven't heard any stories about Nintendo and Microsoft sending lobbyists to the California legislature to tell people about the joys of gaming.

    Seems a bit unfair to me...

    --
    Goo goo g'joob.
    1. Re:This sounds familiar... by Merkuri22 · · Score: 5, Interesting

      I think the reason that video game violence gets more attention than other media violence is because of the way we intereact with video games. Or rather, that we do interact with them, rather than passively watching. A parent concerned about their child and violence will probably be less concerned about their child watching a person murdered in cold blood than about their child actually performing the murder in cold blood, albeit in a virtual sense. In video games, the player is not just watching the violence, but participating. This makes games all the more threatening to folks who feel violent media is a danger. Thus, laws against video game violence get more press than laws against movie or television violence.

    2. Re:This sounds familiar... by PainKilleR-CE · · Score: 5, Interesting

      How is this any different from other special interest groups? We see laws shot down by the movie industry, by the NRA, by Grandmothers Against Rubber Sheets, and no one says anything at all.

      It's not, really, and a quick check on Google will find that Leeland Yee is backed by a couple of special interests himself, in areas where much of the "what about the children?" and "violent media is corrupting our youth" comes from in the first place.

      If lobbying groups working on behalf of the video game industry were responsible for this bill's failure, then it's probably more a story of one lobby against another than they'd like it to appear. On the other hand, if the failure was not the result of some lobby, it makes the whole comment that much more of a joke.

      --
      -PainKilleR-[CE]
  2. Worthless legislation by zuikaku · · Score: 5, Insightful
    Quoting from Yee's press release:

    "Retailers would have also been responsible for clearly displaying signs explaining the Entertainment Software Ratings Board (ESRB) ratings system."

    Aren't they pretty self-explanatory already?

    "In fact, the video game industry's own representative admitted she would not allow her child to play the games that the legislation targeted." (Leland Yee)

    That shows that a *parent* already is deciding what to let her kids play. Isn't it supposed to be the parent who has the power to decide? If so, then what useful purpose does the legislation serve? If the legislature is hoping that lazy parents will somehow be "empowered" by the legislation, I think they'll be disappointed by the results. Then again, I suppose they can continue to use parental laziness to justify further legislation.

  3. Another Victory.. by crotherm · · Score: 5, Interesting


    Another Victory for us parents who want to raise our kids without endless regulations and laws. It is my job to make sure my son does not have access to games I think are not suitable for him, not the store. So far this has worked out quite well.

    Well done legislators!!

    --
    "Those who make peaceful revolution impossible, make violent revolution inevitable" - JFK
  4. Dear Leland, by lightspawn · · Score: 4, Interesting

    Don't feel too bad. You can still try to pass off a law restricting access to other types of violent content, like movies or maybe books (remember all that stuff in the bible?).

    I wonder if this kind of thing will stop happenning in a few years, when most voters will have grown up with videogames. Or do people lose all sense of freedom when becoming parents?

    P.S. It's such a shame money ruled the day. Let's all work together to make sure it never happens again. If it were up to me, I'd just outlaw it outright.

  5. call me odd... by ptrangerv8 · · Score: 4, Funny

    But am I the only one who finds it funny - i.e.... his choise of words.. "...shot down..." when talking about violent video games...

    Maybe if he didn't use such violent language, games wouldn't be violent, and we wouldn't want to try and shoot *him* down....

    my opinion only...