CA Violent Games Bill Comes Under Fire

Gamespot is reporting that the VSDA and the ESA have filed a suit against the California governor in response to the passing of that state's violent games bill. From the article: "The complaint alleges that the new law violates the First Amendment by restricting access to games 'based solely on their expressive content' and unconstitutionally compels speech by manufacturers, distributors, importers, and retailers by requiring them to label violent games with a 2-by-2-inch sticker of a solid white '18' outlined in black."

Comments

Source?

[HunterZ]

The article doesn't cite any sources. I guess gamespot got a copy of the "complaint"? I'd like to know more about the "numerous precedents of video games being qualified as free speech in other circuit courts and states" (quoted from TFA).

Re:Source?

[JasonKChapman]

I'd like to know more about the "numerous precedents of video games being qualified as free speech in other circuit courts and states" (quoted from TFA).

Here's one example (via Gamespot): Washington state

Judge Robert Lasnik of the US District Court in Seattle ruled the law [HB1009] unconstitutional under the First Amendment's protection of freedom of speech.

Sex and Violence are not the only things

[linzeal]

What if you are a parent who does not want his kids renting Christian video games? Why are they only protecting kids from becoming violent and sexually active when some parents worry more about their children becoming part of a religion that typically distances themselves from non-believing family memebers?

Re:Sex and Violence are not the only things

[The Snowman]

As a parent, I am more concerned about my child joining a religion and wasting hours of his life in a church each day like some people here in the Bible Belt do. Sex and violence are more fun than church. I would rather my son do what I did when I was young: run around beating up/getting beaten up by his siblings, or getting drunk and laid once he's old enough. That is more fun than church, and teaches real world lessons such as how to fight, which whiskeys taste good and which ones hurt the morning after, etc.

The real issue is why the government needs to hold children's hands when their parents or legal guardians should be? I'll be damned if I will let my child buy video games, DVDs, Playboys, etc. on his own. Sure, I'll expose him to some adult material to acclimate him so he doesn't go nuts on his 18 and 21 birthdays, but it is my job as Dad to make sure he does what he is supposed to. I don't want the government trying to do my job for me.

and movies have stickers too...

[advocate_one]

don't hear them complaining about the ratings... they just cut the film to get in under the particular age rating they're going for... even going as far as shooting different scenes several times with different states of dress for different markets... so if they can cope with the ratings, why should games be any different???

Re:and movies have stickers too...

[Toddarooski]

How well do you think these movie makers would cope if 50 different states had 50 different vaguely-worded laws about what consituted a PG-13 rating, and what constituted an R rating? (That's even assuming all 50 states decide to have a PG-13 rating and an R rating.) 'Cuz that's where this California law is headed.

Movies aren't complaining because they already have a single, voluntary, self-imposed regulatory systems that labels a movie for content nationwide. Just like games do. So, as you said, why should games by any different?

Re:Can you say "movies" anyone?

[HTH NE1]

Movies with extreme graphic violence, sex, drug taking or a myriad of other things deemed unsuitable for immature audiences are rated M15+ or R18+ and kids aren't allowed to see them.

How is it a breach of First Amendment rights to free speech and unconstitutional?

Because the MPAA ratings are not enforced by law. Whether a theater decides to admit a minor to an R-rated movie without the accompanyment of an adult is up to the theater.

How many times in this thread does this have to be pointed out? It's not like there are hundreds of messages to read through!

What the mainstream hears

[Phantasmo]

I was just watching Anderson Cooper, and they were doing an "exclusive" on Blitz: The League. It's an M-rated football game. Why on earth is this newsworthy? Because it gives them an excuse to interview Jack Thompson.
He spoke at length about how stores like EB will happily sell M-rated games to any kid that has the money. This "fact" was not challenged by anybody on the show. None of the controversies surrounding Thompson were mentioned. Now, I can't quote any studies but I can remember EB employees telling 14-year-olds to come back with their parent or guardian... in the Pre-Hot Coffee Era!
What does this mean? Well, the Slashdot and Penny Arcade readers may know both sides of this issue, but the other 99.98% of North Americans get the CNN version. That includes lawmakers.
In the long run I guess I'll be expected to pass some sort of psychological test and register my purchase with the government before being allowed to buy something like Metroid Prime 3.

In my humble exp

[linzeal]

Um, this is one of the first generations where we have seen athiests and other non-believers have their children become Christian in large numbers. IMHE, the born again and first generation Christians in my family especially do not associate their children with known marijuana smokers in our family even if they are PhD scientists. One of my first generation Christian cousins during Christmas a few years back called the cops on her 14 year old Nephew for smoking a joint outside his own house. It seems they believe more in an all encompassing Christian family than they care about mantaining a real one.

Tinker, the ACLU & the ACLJ say you are wrong

[DAldredge]

From the ACLU

Yes. In 1969 in Tinker v. Des Moines Independent Community School District the Supreme Court held that students in public schools - which are run by the government - do not leave their First Amendment rights at the schoolhouse gate. This means that you can express your opinions orally and in writing - in leaflets or on buttons, armbands or T-shirts.

You have a right to express your opinions as long as you do so in a way that doesn't "materially and substantially" disrupt classes or other school activities. If you hold a protest on the school steps and block the entrance to the building, school officials can stop you. They can probably also stop you from using language that they think is "vulgar or indecent," so watch out for the dirty words, OK?

Also, school officials may not censor only one side of a controversy. If they permit an article in the official school paper that says that premarital sex is bad, they may not censor an article that says premarital sex is good.

From the ACLJ

Tony from Virginia asks: My son is in elementary school, and at school one day he was talking to another student about God. It was during a time where the students were free to talk about anything. His teacher told him that he's not allowed to talk about God in school. We know that's not true, but we were wondering if there's something I can take to the teacher, because we've explained it to her and she still says, "No, he's not allowed to talk about God."

Jay answers: The Supreme Court's decision in the famous Tinker case* said that students possess the rights of freedom of speech. They don't surrender them at the schoolhouse gate. That includes recess time, on the playing field, in the classroom, as long as it's not disruptive to the school environment. And in a case that I had at the Supreme Court of the United States just about a year and a half ago, we won unanimously the rights of mi

"Violent" video games? A bit vague?

[Sockatume]

And more importantly, surely the "18" sticker should only be applied to games rated AO (which are reccomended for ages 18+) rather than all violent games (including M and T rated ones)? With the vague wording of the law, it's no wonder this is turning into a farce.