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