California Legislature Passes Violent Game Bill

404Ender writes "In a move similar to the passage of a law designed to restrict the sale of violent video games to children in Illinois, California is now awaiting only the signature of Governor Schwarzenegger before a similar bill becomes a law. Does this action signal the start of a disturbing trend of the restriction of First Amendment rights? How can we as gamers fight back against this type of government action?"

Comments

Hang on, let me get my copy of

[PunkOfLinux]

Fahrenheit 451:

"With school turning out more runners,... and swimmers instead of examiners, critics... and imaginative creators, the word 'intellectual', of course, became the swear word it deserved to be."

"Colored people don't like Little Black Sambo. Burn it. White people don't feel good about Uncle Tom's Cabin. Burn it. Someone's written a book on tobacco and cancer of the lungs? The cigaretter people are weeping? Burn the book. Serenity... Peace... Take your fight outside. Better yet, into the incinerator."

"She was a time bomb... She didn't want to know how a thing was done, but why. That can be embarrassing."

This sounds more and more like America EVERY DAY.

make the ratings legally enforceable

[E8086]

As far as I know, right now the game ratings are only a suggestion, a suggestion I've never seen enforced. I've seen kids/teenagers carded at movie theaters for PG-13 movoes, I think it's required in NYC theaters. Other than that there is NO enforcement of ratings, games or movies, unless their porn. As long as they're just a suggestion kids who may be too youg for some games are going to be able to buy them. If not, at least the "questionable" game material may gain the attention of the parent buying it to shut their kid up when they're carded by the teenager working the counter at GameStop and think give more thought to buying their 12yr old an "M" rated game.
As for the question of rights, minors don't have them(I know someone's going to call me on this), except for being held responsible for an action when 7 or older and the right to be tried as an adult if they do something really bad. I remember having the right to be yelled at by the neighbors for being "too loud" while playing whiffle ball and football in the middle of the street.
"Ban" sounds too negative, perhaps they should change the wording to; "employees of places of commerce are required to verify the age of patrons seeking to purchase age sensitive[entertainment] materials." That way it should cover movies, games, magazines and any other items not covered by other state or federal laws.
Fortunately I'm about 2500mi away and 7yrs too old to have to even think about that silly proposed California "law." A seemingly dumb and pointless bill aimed at gainging support from religous and parents groups, I wonder who's up for re-election this year.

Re:How does this restrict free speech?

[ConceptJunkie]

Just how does a measure like this restrict free speech?

Because on /. anything that interferes, however tangentially, with the any of preferred pastimes (however vulgar or pointless) of some overweight, socially stunted, acne-bespeckled computer geek living in his parents' basement is an attack on our sacred God-given right of free speech.

In other words, it restricts free speech as much as your parents grounding you for forging a "B" out of a "D" on your report card: None at all.

Remember, this is the crowd that argues: "Hardcore porn never hurt me so there's nothing wrong with it."

Or, "Kids will make intelligent choices on their own and parents shouldn't interfere."

And simultaneously, "Parents should take repsonsibility for their kids, but everyone in society has the right (or even duty) to undermine parents at every turn."

All these arguments, commonly heard in these parts, are the well-considered opinions of people who have no experience with the real world.