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

[Floritard]

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

Re:Irony

[Kamots]

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*

Re:Irony

[Applekid]

"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.

Before anyone asks why it is unconstitutional...

[bigbigbison]

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.

Re:Good for them

[Compholio]

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.