Slashdot Mirror
Judge Blocks Ban on Violent Video Game Sales
dada21 writes "SFGate is reporting that a federal judge recently blocked a new California law that would have banned the sale of violent video games to minors. From the article: 'Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had signed the bill by Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, to ban the sale or rental of especially violent video games to children under 18 years old unless there is parental approval. The law was to take effect Jan. 1.'"
Well, they're actually supposed to interpret the constitution as it is. A federal judge interprets the federal constitution, and a state judge does the same for the state constitution. In this case, the judge found the law to be unconstitutional. Is it really that simple? Judges can block laws all they want. If their only job was to 'uphold the law' then there would all of a sudden be no debate about the patriot act etc. etc. ad nauseam. The judiciary would become little more than a rubber stamp for congress and the president.
I know everyone around here is probably feeling elated and self-righteous, but I think it's more than we can expect, really, in this situation with video games. Think of the culture of the past and backlash there - Booze, Jazz, Rock & Roll, etc... We're getting it pretty good.
To put another spin on it, arnold would be accepting a ban on something that he personally profits for. From a business standpoint, the ban doesn't make sense for him either. I don't mean to imply that this is his guiding reason, or even a factor, but it's one way to look at it.
~Ruff_ilb
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
just create a law banning the sale of video games, marked rated M or Adult, from being sold.
They can't do that. That would be giving legislative powers to a non-governmental agency, which is illegal.
In the beginning the universe was created. This made a lot of people very angry and is widely considered as a bad move.
Wow, these activist judges sure are . . . er . . . active.
The very same judge made a very similar ruling only two days ago!
[Ramones]Dupe, dupe, dupe, dupe & roll highschool[/Ramones]
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Actually, many people think this, but they are mistaken because they're leaving out an important part of the legal system.
Judges need to pay attention not only to the constitution, but also need to carefully consider precendent. This is the part that most people don't realize, and why they get confused when rulings happen that seem contray to how they understand the Constitution or particular laws. The Constitution and the laws of the land are only the beginning of the US legal system, it's the judges that interpret the laws and establish precedents which, later, are followed by other judges in other interpretations and rulings down the road.
This is why Chief Justice Roberts, for example, says he personally doesn't think that abortion should be legal (or some variety on "Roe vs Wade was decided wrong), but considers it to be settled law, and he would need some sort of extraordinary circumstance to occur for him to vote to overturn RvW. It's the principle of "stare decisis", and you can read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis
There are, indeed, people who don't believe that stare decisis should be as predominant as it is, but they seem to be in the minority. Stare decisis isn't a new legal concept dreamt up in the last decade or two, though. It's been around a long time.
I think you might have missed part of what the parent said in Problem one. While the movies do have their rating system, a movie theatre won't get in troble for selling a PG-13 ticket to a 17 year old. Apparently with video games they can get in trouble for selling a Teen movie to a 17 year old.
Fly me to the moon Let me sing among those stars Let me see what spring is like On jupiter and mars