Slashdot Mirror


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.

26 of 106 comments (clear)

  1. Irony by KoldKompress · · Score: 5, Interesting

    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.

    1. Re:Irony by faloi · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Hypocritical, yes. Understandable, yes.

      Like so many things, one just has to follow the money. Lots of senators and governors who enjoy a lot of money from the *AA type groups are all too eager to jump on the bandwagon against violent video games. It avoids having to answer hard questions about what your supporters do to earn money, and gives you a chance to "save the children."

      --
      "It is a miracle that curiosity survives formal education." -Albert Einstein
    2. Re:Irony by Floritard · · Score: 4, Funny

      If you'd played the games based on his movies, you'd understand his anger.

    3. Re:Irony by jonnythan · · Score: 2, Insightful

      He has been in some incredibly violent movies, but minors are not allowed to buy those movies.

      I don't see any reason why minors should be allowed to buy incredibly violent video games.

    4. Re:Irony by Kamots · · Score: 4, Informative

      You do realize that there's no legislation making it illegal for minors to buy violent movies?

      You do realize that the only meaningful difference in the sale of violent movies and games comes from apathetic parents that when they hear "game" they translate it as "appropriate for 10 year old"?

      Get parents to treat games the same way they do movies, i.e. get them to check the freaking rating before letting little Johnny have it, and there won't be an issue.

      But... that requires parents take responsibility. Nope, can't have that! Lets pass some laws instead!

      *sigh*

    5. Re:Irony by HTH+NE1 · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

      --
      Oh, say does that Star-Spangled Banner entwine / The myrtle of Venus with Bacchus's vine?
    6. Re:Irony by Kamots · · Score: 2, Insightful

      "The video game industry has *not* taken care of this itself. It apparently refuses to."

      Care to back that up?

      Essentially the same system is in place for movies and video games. If anything video game ratings are more restrictive than movie ratings. Both rating systems are voluntarily enforced by retailers, and if you look at any major video/game retailer you'll see very similar if not identical policies are in place regarding the sale of games and movies to minors.

    7. Re:Irony by spamking · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

    8. Re:Irony by Applekid · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "The video game industry has *not* taken care of this itself. It apparently refuses to."

      Care to back that up? Actually, yeah, there's no gaming lobby trying to win favors from those in power. The shakeup from government into the gaming sector is pretty much the same as a shakedown to see what sort of money will fall out from them in the end.
      --
      More Twoson than Cupertino
    9. Re:Irony by RexRhino · · Score: 2

      In the U.S. it is totally legal for minors to purchase those movies. The MPAA rating system is voluntarily enforced (at least in theory) by the movie theaters and retailers.

    10. Re:Irony by plague3106 · · Score: 2

      Provide evidence that stores "by and large" don't enforce such rules.

  2. Good for them by Fierythrasher · · Score: 2

    the laws got one right for a change. Let parents and consumers decide what's right, not overly conservative right ring politicians. I have one set of parents, I don't need the Governator as another.

    1. Re:Good for them by Compholio · · Score: 5, Insightful

      the laws got one right for a change. Let parents and consumers decide what's right, not overly conservative right ring politicians. I have one set of parents, I don't need the Governator as another.
      Actually, the law got it wrong and it was corrected by the judicial branch. Note that people that disagree with judges doing things like this say that they're being "activist judges" and "going against the will of the people." Which, as it happens, is one of the purposes of the judicial branch as set forth by the constitution.
    2. Re:Good for them by Yahweh+Doesn't+Exist · · Score: 3, Insightful

      >Let parents and consumers decide what's right, not overly conservative right ring politicians.

      are you some sort of completely retarded left-wing hippy? the right-wing typically advocates personal freedoms and responsibilities, as well as a generally small government with few restrictions on commerce. how could this law possibly be associated with right-wing politicians? they'd have to be totally ignorant of the facts, too stupid to think about things logically, and complete hypocrites. and you think people would ever vote for such politicians.

      go home troll, no way it'd ever happen...

    3. Re:Good for them by Belacgod · · Score: 2, Insightful

      Where have you been living for the past 12 years? The right wing's just as bad as the left now on cultural content.

    4. Re:Good for them by Rakarra · · Score: 3, Informative
      Calling the Governator overly conservative is quite a stretch. As another poster hinted, Arnold is more in the vein of 60's and 70's Republicans rather the neo-cons of the Reagan/Bush era. His biggest problem with the California Legislature at the moment is that he gets better results working with the Democrats than he does with the Republicans who don't think he's conservative enough. And the bill's author and primary sponsor is Leland Yee, a Democrat who's clueless about games, hardly a right-wing figure.

      When it comes to media censorship, the Democrats have not had a stellar track record.

  3. Before anyone asks why it is unconstitutional... by bigbigbison · · Score: 5, Insightful

    Every time these stories about videogame laws come up someone asks what is wrong with having laws like this.

    Here's the problem:
    In the USA no other medium has its ratings enforced by the government. Not the music industry, not the comic book industry, not the internet, not tv, and not the film industry. The MPAA ratings are self-enforced. If someone under 17 isn't allowed into an R-rated movie without an adult it is because the movie industry is inforcing those rules, not the government.

    Therefore, if the videogame industry were to be singled out as the only medium to have its ratings enforced by the government there would have to be a mountain of evidence suggesting that violent videogames were harmful to minors. No such mountain exists. As such, these laws are misguided at best and hollow attempts on the part of politicians to appear "pro-family" at worst.

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
  4. Go for the wallet by RogueyWon · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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?

    1. Re:Go for the wallet by Opportunist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      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.

      --
      We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
    2. Re:Go for the wallet by MightyMartian · · Score: 2, Insightful

      I dunno, does the US population do that? Certainly, certain groups (states rightists, the ACLU, the gun lobby) make lots of noise when legislatures try to make end-runs around the Constitution, but that hardly means the public at large does.

      --
      The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  5. Re:Last Action Hero by MightyMartian · · Score: 2

    It's ironic, when you look at movies like Terminator, Conan and Predator where people bite it, often at his hand, in rather horrifying ways. But let's remember that politicians are essentially whores, so when they're taking it up the ass from some lobby they figure can get them a few more votes, they learn how to smile and make it look like they're sincere.

    --
    The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
  6. Law struck down on the basis of stupidity? by bigtangringo · · Score: 3, Funny

    As far as I know, this isn't something that happens often. A judge looked at the law, the facts, etc, and said "Hey, that just doesn't make sense." My most sincere thanks to the judge.

    --
    Yes, I am a smart ass; it's better than the alternative.
  7. Re:Before anyone asks why it is unconstitutional.. by bigbigbison · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.

    --
    http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
  8. It's just like with porn by Kawolski · · Score: 3, Informative

    They'll keep trying to pass laws like this because they've succeeded in passing laws that prohibit selling pornographic material to minors. Restricting the sale of "violent video games" is just seen as an extension of that, and it isn't a difficult task to convince U.S. government lawmakers that controlling a virtual character to chop another person's head off with gallons of blood flying everywhere is more or just as harmful to children as seeing a pair of exposed female breasts. Lobbying dollars are not required. After all, if the "think of the children" mantra didn't work, politicians wouldn't use it so damn often.

  9. Re:Before anyone asks why it is unconstitutional.. by Ahnteis · · Score: 2, Interesting

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

  10. An insult to whores everywhere by spun · · Score: 2, Funny

    But let's remember that politicians are essentially whores Whores perform an actual service for your money.
    --
    - None can love freedom heartily, but good men; the rest love not freedom, but license. -- John Milton