Slashdot Mirror
ESA Seeks Money For Legal Fees From CA
The Escapist is reporting that the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), frustrated with the costs incurred from their successful battle to overturn the state's violent videogame law, is now going after California for legal fees. "The ESA is claiming the legal battle, which led to the overturning of the "fundamentally flawed" law, cost a total of $324,840. If granted, it will bring the costs awarded to the industry in First Amendment defenses to nearly $1.9 million, spread across eight other jurisdictions that had attempted to pass similar laws." The site also reports that California Governor Schwarzenegger has followed through on his promise to appeal that overturn, seeking to restore the legislation championed by Leland Yee.
the California voters will get pissed off and vote out the clowns that passed legislation they should have known would be doomed.
These are California voters. The same people who elected Arnold Schwarzenegger. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Do you think they're a rational group of people?
It's interesting that a quote from an article about the law itself from its supporter Leyland Yee says "They fought efforts to publicize their rating system because they thought it would impact sales, and now they're again putting their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children."
The thing that gets me is he (and probably others) think that not having warning labels somehow infringes on the rights of individuals, in this case parents, to make an informed decision about purchases. Personally, I don't see how having a label or not having a label has anything to do with rights. Warning labels may fall into the realm of product liability, but I don't think that really applies to any form of intellectual property. The concept that certain ideas can be harmful is a very dangerous one; my opinion is that the only times certain ideas are harmful is if they are implemented, not if they are discussed or considered.
In this particular instance - video games - the parent always has the right to watch the games their child plays, as well as the right to take that game away from the child (well, I'm sure some people would argue against that right, but I think that's a valid parental responsibility - and therefore they have to have the right to do it. If you take away that parental 'right', then parents must also be indemnified for the actions of their children (because they don't have the right to 'interfere' in their child's life), and I don't see many courts wanting to tackle that issue. In fact, I don't think I want to live in a society that would do such a thing.)
"There are a dozen opinions on a matter until you know the truth. Then there is only one." - CS Lewis (paraprhase)
"Governor Rod Blagojevich spent nearly $1 million in a failed defense of an unconstitutional videogame law, which ultimately resulted in cash being drawn from public health and state welfare programs in order to cover the cost."
It's bad enough that they are passing these stupid laws in the first place, but wasting that much taxpayer money to defend them after the fact is just sad. Won't someone think of the poor and sick children?
You are reading a copy of my copyrighted post.
does everyone have time to do that? do YOU do that? have you read the magazines they read? watched the TV shows? listened to the radio programs? have you read the list of ingredients on the food they eat?
Most people think its good that food has how much fat and sugar it contains written on the packet. If so, what's wrong with a game having how much violence and sex is in the game on the box?
Bioshock has an 18 certificate printed on the box cover. I'm fine with that. What's the problem? cigarettes in the Uk even have SMOKING KILLS written by law on every packet. Is that a problem?
DRM-free indie games for the PC and Mac: Positech Games
What, an actor can't be informed? They can't think critically or be well reasoned? Do you think he's only as smart as the character he played in Connan?
His campaign used his celebrity, not well-reasoned thought. He had almost no formal education, little experience politically, and was basically voted in because he was famous. It's not enough just to be "informed", "think critically", and be "well reasoned".
Maybe, but being any one of these would make one a better than average politician.
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
"There are thousands of children in foster homes waiting for adoption, but nobody wants them."
That's not entirely true... A know a couple who wanted to adopt, yet the application paperwork alone took them 2 years - with a lawyer - to complete. Only then, were they even allowed to start looking.
At one point, they seriously considered just joining one of those "baby-express" tours to China. It would have cost them about the same amount, but would have only taken 6 months, as opposed to the 3 years they eventually spent finding a child.
> He had almost no formal education, little experience politically, and was basically voted in because he was famous.
Probably right about why he was voted in. In his defense, he was President of the Screen Actors Guild. Anyone who can manage that bunch of prima donnas has some political acumen. No, I didn't vote for him.
Done with slashdot, done with nerds, getting a life.