ESA to Sue California Over Violent Game Law

Advtg writes "In response to last week's bill banning the sale of violent video games (/. coverage), the Entertainment Software Association has announced that they are preparing to sue the State of California. From the article, "The Entertainment Software Association is planning to sue the State of California over the passage of AB1179, a bill that has outlawed the sale of violent video games to minors. President Douglas Lowenstein said that he 'intends to file a lawsuit to strike this law down,' and added that he is 'confident that we will prevail.' The article goes on to show how muddy the law is in comparison to other laws meant to protect minors."

Comments

Re:CIPA is a bad example

[Agelmar]

It was found unconstitutional, but not because the wording for what it blocked was vague. It was found unconstitutional because current filters (NetNanny etc) are rather lacking, have too many false positives, and would therefore filter out legitimate pages. And apparently school libraries are still covered under the CIPA provisions.

Re:Whats next?

[sqlrob]

There is no law preventing minors from going to see or buy R rated movies, and there's no rating on books either. That's part of the point of objecting to this law.

Lowenstein has a Track Record Here

[ewhac]

I have little doubt the law will be struck down. Lowenstein and the ESA have an excellent track record of going into states that have enacted similar wrong-headed laws and had them struck down. Not only is it a clear violation of the First Amendment, it unfairly and unnecessarily targets video games, while leaving other forms of popular media (movies, books, music) unaddressed. From a legal standpoint, this is indefensible, so the state doesn't stand much of a chance.

Schwab
California Resident

Re:Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violenc

[LocalH]

Hahahah, looks like yet another gullible person who doesn't know that MAVAV is a hoax. Nice try though.

Re:Pro-Capitalism = Pro-Monopoly?

[BagMan2]

ESRB is a voluntary system. You can release a game without putting a rating on it if you want. Of course, few retailers will put your product on their shelves, but that is completely at their discretion. They choose to do this because consumers demand that additional level of information regarding what they are purchasing. Heck, I am a professional game developer and I can't even tell you whether half the games on the shelf are appropriate for children without the aid of a rating system.

Big retailers like Walmart have their own criteria for what makes it on the shelf and what doesn't. Game developers specifically cater their content to get a desired rating. This is not censorship, simply a business decision on how to maximize profits from a product.

Rating systems that are not on-the-box are practically worthless too, as few people have time to research games before they buy them. I know I go to the store and simply look at the boxes on the shelf, decide what I think my kids might like and buy it. And it is absurd for every game to have a different rating system on the package. The retailers and game developers got together and agreed on a common system to use.

What you advocate would either be worthless or only serve to confuse the situation further. You're just bitter than retailers, publishers, and developers choose to make money rather than exercise their free speech rights.