CA Games Bill Stopped

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."

Comments

Excellent

[Limburgher]

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.

Splendiferous

[OneWingedgAmer]

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.

Re:Politics of the US

[Chmcginn]

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.

Re:Politics of the US

[GTarrant]

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.