Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

CA Games Bill Stopped

Posted by Zonk on from the my-fragging-is-free-speech dept.

Gamasutra reports that a Judge has stopped the implementation of the CA Violent Game Bill in its tracks. The Judge in the case cites numerous rulings finding that games and violence are not categorically linked. From the article: "As a direct result of the suit filed by the ESA and VSDA in October regarding the AB1179 law, Judge Whyte wrote that 'games are protected by the First Amendment and that plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their argument that the Act violates the First Amendment.' This is the third initially successful ESA court challenge in recent weeks, following similar events in Illinois earlier in December and another preliminary blocking in Michigan in early November."

24 comments

  1. Excellent by Limburgher · · Score: 4, Insightful

    Score one for the "I like violent viedo games but won't let my kids play them until they're actually old and mature enough" crowd. While I think a lot of the games out these days are crap, I still think any sort of ban is ridiculous. Good parenting is more than sufficient. Use a rating system, fine, but a ban is stupid.

    --

    You are not the customer.

    1. Re:Excellent by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 0, Offtopic

      You know I'm a big fan of the Terminator 2 and 3 movies. But as I'm replaying them recently, I find myself rooting for the bad liquid dude/chick more and more. What up with that?

    2. Re:Excellent by Stan+Vassilev · · Score: 1

      For those not picking the connection between this article and my comment above, I'll give a hint (but god knows I hate explaining my jokes /they're bad enough anyway/):

      arnold schwarzenegger

    3. Re:Excellent by zaliph · · Score: 3, Informative
      Rating systems are voluntarily enforced.

      http://www.mpaa.org/movieratings/about/index.htm

      http://www.riaa.com/issues/parents/advisory.asp

      The major problem with the legislation is that its not necessary. For this to work, all you need to do is convince the retailers to embrace it. For example, any five-year old can legally buy a porno, but any retailer will refuse them, legally.

    4. Re:Excellent by Spazztastic · · Score: 1

      agreed. The only suitable rating system would be requirement of a photo ID proving age over 17, and that is only if they get their way, otherwise I enjoy the way it is. I know before I turned 17, EB games usually would ask my parents if it was appropriate for me to get it.

      --
      Posts not to be taken literally. Almost everything is sarcasm.
    5. Re:Excellent by mmalove · · Score: 1

      I'm glad to see this got shot down immediately. Kid's access to violence, and what they learn from it, is entirely up to good parenting. Leave the government to worry about things we pay the government to worry about, like counter terrorism, instead of trying to step on our freedom all the time.

      --
      You can get 15 minutes of fame, but you can go down in history for infamy.
  2. This is not good by game+kid · · Score: 2, Funny

    Anytime the USDA gets involved with gaming content, there is clearly a lot of beef behind the scenes.

    --what??? V...S...D'oh!

    --
    You can hold down the "B" button for continuous firing.
  3. Splendiferous by OneWingedgAmer · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Although the ruling doesn't surprise me, I'm glad that the bill never became law. It isn't the government's job to legislate morality. I believe that it is a parent's right to decide what is appropriate for their kids. There is a sufficent rating board in place that can inform any literate parent of the content of the games they purchase for their children; thus, I see no reason for a legal ban, and I see no reason for "concerned parents" to complain.

    --
    "Once I saw a forklift lift a crate of forks.... it was so damn literal." -Mitch Hedberg
  4. Re:What With All The Politics Stories? by OneWingedgAmer · · Score: 1

    This story is actually under "Games" since it has to do with video game legislation...so why are you ranting about the "Politics" section?

    --
    "Once I saw a forklift lift a crate of forks.... it was so damn literal." -Mitch Hedberg
  5. Thankfully the courts ruled logically this time by drakethegreat · · Score: 1, Interesting

    This is one of the few times I've seen US judges support a side based on the constitution. Recently I've notice that we have a bunch of situations where people are claiming it violates the 1st amendment or some other part of the constitution and usually you here nothing after that. It just sort of goes silent and later you learn that whatever was objectional somehow got through.

    See this sort of thing restores a little faith in the court system to recognize this document that is vital to the security of the individual. Should courts rule in favor of violations then one day we might look back on these times as a failure of will power from the american people.

  6. Politics of the US by Chmcginn · · Score: 3, Interesting
    hardly any of today's stories are about US Government politics in any meaningful sense. In fact what California does really has no bearing on the Federal government or the US in general.

    So you've never seen a vehicle with "California emissions" outside of CA? And you've never seen those amusing "This product contains chemicals known to the state of California to cause mutation, zombification, or head-explody"? (I might be paraphrasing.)

    Anyway, my point is - CA is almost 20% of the population of the US as a whole, and given that CA's consumer/enviornmental/nanny-state laws are generally stricter than the federal government, what is legal in CA is just practical to make, if you want to be able to market it nationwide. Not to mention that many federal programs were inspired by something California did first.

    Like it or not, the actions of one state can & does affect the nation, especially when that one state has the highest population.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    1. Re:Politics of the US by Pharmboy · · Score: 2, Interesting

      California contains 12% of the US population, NOT 20%. Big difference. (see Wikipedia) biggest, yes, but by a bit over half of your estimation.

      Secondly, most states don't really care what California does. Or any other state. This is a federal issue regarding a state law, ie: US constitutionality.

      The whole idea of a Federalist Democratic Republic (ie: USA) is so that the feds dont have to do everything, and each state can do what it wants, as long as it doesnt violate the US constitution, like this law did (ie: 10th Amendment). It will have little impact to the other states, except giving them a reason to word their laws differently. After all, for a politician, the goal isn't the result, it is being able to say "I tried but a judge kicked the law out. Now reelect me."

      It doesn't bar them from passing any laws they want. If Florida passes the same law, it has to go through the courts again, and the federal judge in that district thinks the law is kosher, then the law will be legal in Florida. 5 to 10 years later, maybe the Supremes will take it on after a few appeals, maybe not.

      And I want to state again, no one outside of California really cares what laws are passed in California, with very few little exceptions. Nothing personal, it's just the way it is for any state, and I have lived in about a dozen. Just as those of us in North Carolina don't care that New York has gun control, we still can get conceal to carry permits, and the lottery is legal 30 miles north in Virginia but not here, so we drive north.

      --
      Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
    2. Re:Politics of the US by Chmcginn · · Score: 2, Insightful
      And I want to state again, no one outside of California really cares what laws are passed in California, with very few little exceptions.
      Secondly, if you want to consider laws on various enviornment laws & agencies, mental health, and a range of other subjects, first passed in California & later to inspire federal law, as unimportant, go right ahead.

      But just because you don't see the pattern (California picks current social issue, passes laws & creates agencies, federal government follows suit) doesn't mean that nobody cares. The original poster complained that California politics weren't germane to U.S. politics in general - I pointed out why a law in California can become the concern of everyone in the U.S.

      --
      Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
    3. Re:Politics of the US by GTarrant · · Score: 2, Insightful
      This is definitely untrue, at least in the business world - if New Hampshire had been the state to pass some strange law that required new labels to be printed on objects if they are suspected carcinogens, many companies would have simply stopped shipping products to New Hampshire. California passes such a law, for example, and now tons of products out there carry the warning label stating that in California, "X" is true (and I'm on the east coast, and see them!).

      It is also because of California, and no other state or federal law, that customers of large financial corporations, insurance companies, etc. are actually being [i]told[/i] when their financial data has been compromised. It went on for years without companies telling customers, because they didn't have to and bore no liability if someone was harmed with the information. California passes a law and now suddenly it's a common occurance (it's also forcing companies to take steps to prevent it to prevent the negative PR involved, which they had no incentive to do before). Legislation of this type has been stymied in Congress for years, despite being tremendously important in these days of identity theft.

      No, California's gun control laws aren't going to affect other states, but to say that California's laws don't often affect the nation as a whole is untrue. Because of its sheer size and population, it does matter.

    4. Re:Politics of the US by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      California leads the way in political decisions...disgusting, isn't it?

      We're already completely removing the second amendment. (San Francisco, city and county). Freedom of speech and the right to criticize politicians severely curtailed (if the political hack is a "minority", then you're a racist for calling him on corruption)

      Hell, we even pioneered the whole "movie star to politician thing".

      And Hollywood's been cramming it's own version of "culture" down the entire world's throat for decades.

      Funny how the Breakfast Cereal State and those who scream most about "freedom" are the ones who have actively and consistently been the first to curtail freedoms based not on logic, or forethought, but on pop cultural whims.

      Even water was illegal for a bit here (that whole dihydrogen monoxide thing)

  7. Re:What With All The Politics Stories? by Pharmboy · · Score: 1

    It is listed as The Courts / Games / Politics and placed in the Games area. I would argue against part of the logic used in that decision, since it pertains to First Amendment rights and seems more of a Your Rights Online issue than politics.

    The Games section of /. is getting pretty small lately, and this case has broader impact than just the gaming industry, thus the story deserves better exposure.

    Don't worry though, I'm quite confident that Taco will dupe it in another section that gets more traffic ;)

    --
    Tequila: It's not just for breakfast anymore!
  8. The value of multiple backups... by Starker_Kull · · Score: 2, Funny

    ...not just two branches of government - three! May not be efficent, but it sure seems a lot safer....

    1. Re:The value of multiple backups... by Alsee · · Score: 2, Funny

      I think we'd be a lot safer if we had an off-site backups as well. We had all three backups go up in smoke at the same time when a god damn plane hit the building.

      -

      --
      - - You can't take something off the Internet! That's like trying to take pee out of a swimming pool.
    2. Re:The value of multiple backups... by Starker_Kull · · Score: 1

      Very nicely put - I'm glad SOMEONE caught the seriousness as well as the humor of my remark - but 9-11 was a pretty shocking experience for a country that has been pretty peaceful (well, internally) essentially since the Vietnam War.

      But as to off-site backups, Democracy and a Constitutional form of government is/are a worldwide concept that is thriving in many places, certainly more places than throughout most of history... So in a sense, the off-site backup program has been very successful; it's just that the original is looking a bit weak right now....

      Merry Christmas!

  9. Good ! by Ashley+Bowers · · Score: 0

    This was a wise desicion by the Judge residing over the case. In no way should California or any state have the right to pass such a bill. The Government has no right to ban games because someone lables it mature or adult or offensive. This country was founded in part by un popular speech and we need to make sure we protect that freedom, and by the judge ruling the way he did the judge did his part in protecting that freedom in my opinon.

  10. It just furthers my hypothesis.... by Chmcginn · · Score: 1

    that the freedom a fair portion of the country is most concerned about is the freedom from decisions.

    --
    Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?