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.

Re:Excellent

[zaliph]

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.

This is not good

[game kid]

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

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

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.

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.

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.

The value of multiple backups...

[Starker_Kull]

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

Re:The value of multiple backups...

[Alsee]

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.

-