CA Game Bill Struck Down, Governor Vows Appeal

GamePolitics has the full story today on the removal of California's violent games law. A judge has found it unconstitutional after a protracted legal battle. The law was originally passed back in 2005. "The bill, championed by then-Assembly Speaker Leland Yee (D) was signed into law by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (left) on October 7th, 2005. The video game industry filed suit to block the law 10 days later. Judge Ronald Whyte issued a preliminary injunction on December 22nd, blocking the California law from its planned effective date of January 1st, 2006. Since then, both sides have been waiting for Judge Whyte's final ruling. Today it has come." The law's sponsor Leland Yee is quite disappointed by the ruling, of course, and Governor Schwarzenegger plans to appeal the decision.

Comments

Irony

[KoldKompress]

Is it just me, or does it seem hypocritical that Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes this? He's been in some incredibly violent movies, after all.

Why do people see the two mediums as being so distant? What passes as an R for a movie, would be an AO for a game, like Manhunt.

I believe that people of earlier generations do not understand games - they see an interactive medium and believe that the interactivity somehow makes it more personal, or influencial. Yet I think any well adjusted person who plays video games know they're just that - games.

Re:Irony

[HTH NE1]

Kids imitating Superman and Spider-Man can do so safely in a game, sublimating the desire to do it by jumping off of rooftops.

Re:Irony

[spamking]

I wasn't aware that the movie industry had people situated in theaters and retail stores around the country that conducted ID checks on everyone who purchased "R-rated" movie tickets or DVDs. The punk kids at the local theater in my home town sure don't mess with checking IDs. And I haven't noticed most retailers giving it much thought/effort either.

While I see your point about the rating system, it is ultimately up to the local theaters to deal with the ID checks, and even more so up to parents to make sure their kids aren't watching movies or playing games they shouldn't be. Unfortunately a lot of parents a apathetic about this stuff and fail to keep up with things and just know that if their kid doesn't get a copy of the latest and greatest video game console and a copy of every available title, that the kid will grow up warped and made fun of. It's very easy to fall into that trap as a parent.

Secondly, kids are always going to have access to "violent" games and movies. There will always be that one teenage kid who's older brother, cousin or whoever will have a copy of a game rated "M" that they allow the teen to play. Since my kids aren't old enough to even play games rated "T" I don't have to worry about it just quite yet. When I do, I just hope my kids talk to me about it before they try to play it so I can explain again why they're not old enough to play it.

Think of it like underage drinking. It's illegal in most places to drink if you're not 21, but some how 17 and 18 year-olds are drinking all of the time. Sometimes they buy it with a fake ID; sometimes people over 21 supply it for them.

In my opinion, the government shouldn't be wasting time and money on try to legislate parenting. Which is in effect what a bill such as this would do.

Go for the wallet

[RogueyWon]

These bills have failed in enough States now that it must be 100% clear that they are never going to stand up to legal scrutiny and their passage can be nothing more than a political statement. Is there no way that the administrative cost of drafting them and the legal costs of defending them in court could be inflicted directly upon the legislators who still insist on trying to drive them through?

Re:Go for the wallet

[Opportunist]

Why doesn't the other party use slogans like "Governer X has signed y laws into existance that were immediately thrown out by the court as unconstitutional"?

I mean, the way I judge the US population, they start throwing fits when they hear their politicians do something against the constitution.

Re:Before anyone asks why it is unconstitutional..

[bigbigbison]

I've not read the text of the proposed law but unless it requires all games to be rated then the simple solution is to not submit a game for a rating. Of course, that would probably prevent most stores from carrying it.

When there are things like Steam, Gametap, X-Box live and other less legal online methods of game delivery, these types of laws are becoming increasingly meaningless anyway.

Politicians are whores.

[Anonymous Coward]

Earler varieties have tried to ban, as immoral, Waltzing, Louie Louie by I believe the Kingsmen, Comic books, books (several), stand up comedy, a Birth of a Nation, movies like The Moon is Blue. I recently saw La Beste, that was .... interesting, and much banned.

But can you blame them old people think all kinds of stupid things, such as Graham Crackers will help prevent young boys from masturbating. In not too long, I will be old, and will beging thinking stupid things. It is the way of the world.

Re:Before anyone asks why it is unconstitutional..

[Ahnteis]

FCC has control over the limited public resource of the broadcast spectrum. They have no right to limit cable, private satellites, movie theatres, etc.