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

Thankfully the courts ruled logically this time

[drakethegreat]

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.

Politics of the US

[Chmcginn]

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.

Re:Politics of the US

[Pharmboy]

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.