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.'"
" 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.'""
In other words. Parents should be responsable for their kids. So were's the problem again?
Well,If 'kids' are'nt allowed to buy a particular game due to age restrictions,what stops them from downloading from p2p/bittorrent?
Why does yahoo do this
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.
This is about deterring the production of said games. If they can't be bought by minors, then they will be pirated. This destroys the revenue stream, making it unprofitable to make such games.
Evil, huh? This is the premise of much of the censorship we see today, controlling speech through the 'think about the children!' impulse.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
So what do you suggest - that we remove any such limitations? allow tobacco companies to target children?
We have laws against murder - that is not working too well either. Shall we go ahead and repeal those as well?
Exactly how your comment got modded as "Interesting" baffles me!
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.
"We don't allow kids to buy cigarettes or alcohol or look at pornography," he said. "There are already situations in which we as society have said we have to protect kids by limiting what they can do."
Cigarettes and alcohol don't involve speech or expression.
And as far as pornography, it may be true that Mr. Yee doesn't let his kids look at it. But that's not the constitutinal standard. The Supreme Court has already overruled the Communications Decency Act, which required adult websites to verify age before displaying any "pornographic" content.
Typical legislative mentality. Ignore the constitution... just do what makes you look good and let the courts sort it out.
So the judge doesn't think I have a right to decide what my child has access to?
Actually the judge does think you have a right to decide what your child has access to, the judge doesn't think you have a right to decide what MY child has access to.
Clever signature text goes here.