Slashdot Mirror
CA Officials Respond To Lawsuit
Gamasutra is reporting on Yee and Schwarzenegger's response to the lawsuit brought in response to the violent games bill passed recently in California. From the article: "History has proven in cases of child labor and physical assault on children that we can and should pass laws to protect them. I am a strong believer in the First Amendment and in free speech, but when a game allows a player to virtually commit sexual assault and murder, as a society we must do what we can to protect our children, as we do for alcohol, tobacco, and pornography, among other items," We've previously reported on the passing of the bill and the filing of the lawsuit.
We also have a duty to protect our nation against Communism. And thus it's entirely reasonable to have a law that requires citizens to register, in advance, for each and every piece of Communist literature that comes to them through the mail.
...or at least, that's the argument being put forward. I guess it depends on who you view a great big 18 sticker on the front of every box. Or, more tellingly, how 12 people who've been forced to do jury duty can be made to see it.
Except, as the judge found in that case, such a "protection" creates a "chilling effect" upon free speech and thus is unconstitutional.
A requirement for videogame stores to respect ESRB ratings is one thing. That has no "chilling effect" upon publishers creating new works.
Demanding a 2inch by 2inch bold logo on the front of a game stating it's 18 changes not just parental awareness (which can be covered by ESRB information displays) but serves to villify such titles, embarassing legitimate customers who don't want to be perceived as "bad" for purchasing them.
Similarly, it is reasonable to ask that publicly displayed adult magazines are placed out of children's reach and have either a non-sexual cover or that that cover is hidden. It is unreasonable and has a "chilling effect" to demand that adult magazines have a bright neon slip cover advertising "ANYONE WHO BUYS THIS IS A SEX ADDICT!" One protects children, the other has a chilling effect on the entirely legal sale of the product to those legally allowed to buy it.
The California law's problem is that it oversteps from being truly about protection of children in to "chilling effect" territory.