Slashdot Mirror
Calif. Petitions Supreme Court On Violent Video Game Bill
eldavojohn writes "You know the drill, violent video game bill struck down because: "We hold that the Act, as presumptively invalid content-based restriction on speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and not the 'variable obscenity' standard from Ginsberg v. New York. Applying strict scrutiny, we hold that the Act violates rights protected by the First Amendment." Well, that didn't satisfy a PhD child psychologist turned Democratic California State Senator named Leland Yee who states in his press release that "California's violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court — which has never heard a case dealing with violent video games — will accept our appeal and assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children. I believe the high court will uphold this law as Constitutional. In fact in Roper v. Simmons, the court agreed we need to treat children differently in the eyes of the law due to brain development." His appeal (in PDF) is here and you can find some industry reactions to the Supreme Court hearing at GamePolitics. Unfortunately Yee seems to be a bit more competent than old Jack Thompson, who is pushing a bill in Louisiana today."
But Michael Moore addressed this with Bowling for Columbine and he was right on. They have violent video games in Japan, yet Japanese teens gun prone to violence. Modify the gun laws.
"Engineering. Where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream." -Sheldon
Hopefully the Supreme Court will see sense on this issue, and give us all the outcome that we want.
...assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children. How about a bill to assist parents in keeping that harmful McDonald's food out of the hands of children? Childhood obesity does a lot more damage than video games! After that, can we work on a bill to keep television remotes out of the hands of wives and girlfriends? I'm pretty sure that is the number one cause of domestic violence!
I've abandoned my search for truth; now I'm just looking for some useful delusions.
Where are they going to find the money to bring this to the supreme court?
Wouldn't it be better to actually spend the money on the children in California, rather than pay lawyers to take this clearly unconstitutional law to the supreme court? What with California's budget woes; you would think they would want to save the money so they don't have to cut as much from education and health care for poor children.
they referenced the Ginsberg case! (see: the line about sodomite truck drivers in Howl) didn't realize that particular case was seminal.
Bringing in a case about the death penalty is an interesting tactic. I'm surprised he didn't use a school speech case, as they seem to be more on point. Oh well, hope he loses regardless.
http://bgcommonsense.blogspot.com
Ah, Leland Yee.
This is the same Leland Yee who has three times been pulled over on suspicion of cruising for prostitutes in San Fran (while holding public office), but never been charged? The same Leland Yee who was arrested for shoplifting in Hawaii, but had all charges dropped without prejudice?
Is it just me, or are those with the biggest axe to grind usually the ones with the most delicious skeletons in the closet?
"Trolls they were, but filled with the evil will of their master: a fell race..." -- J.R.R. Tolkien on Olog-hai
assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children
Wait, so parents can't refuse to buy violent video games for their kids already? They can't confiscate them if the child (or, more likely, teenager) saves up their allowance and goes and buys it themselves?
Why not just pass a law against kids being idiots? Solve a lot more problems that way, and has about the same chances of doing anything as these censorship measures do.
Someone needs to remind Mr. Yee that, at least in all the cases I've heard reported on, the store didn't sell the video game to the kid. They sold it to an adult relative of the kid, who then gave it to the kid without bothering to check on what exactly their "little angel" had been bugging them for. And then when they found out exactly what little Timmy had gotten, they dove headfirst into that river in Africa and started looking around for someone else to take the blame for their failure. No law about selling video games to minors will do a single blessed thing about that, where there's no video game ever sold to the minor.
"California's violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the imaginary harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games."
FTFY
I didn't RTFA but I personal opinion on the subject are as such: I do believe that violent video games should be kept out of the hands of children. In fact I myself have prohibited my son from playing games like GTA for similar reasons as many of these politicians are stating. I do NOT however believe that should prevent anybody, especially mature consenting adults, from playing those games.
:)
I think games should have better parential controls and/or and retail outlets should have more stringent checking of video game ratings when kids are buying games. In no way shape or form however, would I ever agree with a ban on these games regardless of how over the top they might be. Even if I wouldnt play the game I still feel that we, as americans, have the right to play whatever the hell we want to play.
Still, kids are going to find ways to get their hands on the games, especially as they get older. Honestly though the only kids Im worried about are my own, and once they get past 12-14 or so I could care less what they play, as long as their homework is finished.
Yet Canada has more guns per capita then the US, and the same video games but also does not have teens prone to violence.
Maybe there are deeper issues then just 'guns be evil.'
Yes, there are definitely deeper issues, and making stricter gun laws is not ever the answer, as evidenced by statistics where strict gun laws did nothing but increase crime rate.
I hate to say the blatantly obvious, but don't try and take my guns away because people generally suck at parenting, which tends to be the true root cause of this issue. If people can't manage to keep an ESRB teen-rated GTA game away from a 9-year old, that is not anyone elses fault, and certainly has NOTHING to do with my other inalienable rights. There's plenty of tech out there to protect your children from the Internet and they already should not be able to walk into WalMart and buy a violent game.
Just another lame-ass excuse to grab guns and excuse parents from actual responsibility.
but who will protect those kids from endless frivolous lawsuits?
http://twitter.com/OLDTELEGRAM
It never ceases to amaze me how many taxpayer dollars and how much court time could be saved if legislators simply read and understood the documents they are supposed to be upholding.
Seconded.
I also propose kicking trouble makers out of schools and onto the streets, then filling those desks with puppies.
You know, this could be a blessing in disguise. When this is stricken down in the supreme court, it will set a precedent for similar cases nationwide, perhaps putting at least a lid on the subject. Or so I hope.
There's no such thing as bad publicity, after all.
Seconded.
I also propose kicking trouble makers out of schools and onto the streets, then filling those desks with puppies.
There would be fewer puppies on the street that way.
It'd be pretty funny if some pissed off kid shot the bitch,
Why bother, just shoot 'em now rather than later. (the puppies and the trouble makers. same thing really)!
Why bother
Puppies will grow up to helpful to society.
Steering people (yes kids count as people, they are not sub-humans incapable of reasoning) away from the wrong direction gives them no ambition to move towards the right. Quite the contrary, they resist. We all know this because there is a little trait of people that causes illegal things to not "go away". Guns in "gun-less countries" are still there, and underage drinking has not gone the path of the dinosaurs either, we can't expect something as unregulated as video games to take a different route. So what should the government do to take care of this 'catastrophe'? Nothing. That's right boys and girls, it's in fact the job of the people to raise their children. Parents need to go out and take the initiative to buy their kids games that are non-violent that keep their kids preoccupied and away from violent video games. You may say, "how do I manage to find one?" It's called online reviews and talking to game store employees. Now you've run out of excuses. Go out and raise your kids. If you can manage that.
Help fight spam
A capital punishment decision that was only 5-4 is going to be extended so far as to justify prior restraint on free expression. In fact - yes, this is a legal argument but it just barely passes the laugh test.
THE YEAR WAS 2081, and everybody was finally equal...
wasn't he-who-must-not-be-named disbarred?
[...] we need to treat children differently in the eyes of the law due to brain development.
Why did I understand that as "We need to treat their brains, so they stop developing." and "At least they got any brains. Which we clearly don't. Let's nuke them!"
Maybe I'm just tired. ^^
But I don't know it it's from the retardedness of such people, or from fatigue. ^^
Any sufficiently advanced intelligence is indistinguishable from stupidity.
And make it illegal to indoctrinate children with religion, as religion is 1000 fold more harmful to childrens' minds than any videogame. Then, when they're of an age where they're capable of choosing themselves, having been enlightened of the choices in religion and atheism, and let them choose for themselves. Just like they can choose to play these presumably harmful videogames.
Of Course.....Leave it to the MORONIC government in California to waste MORE money and worsen the budget they already screwed up on !
How about you and Arrrrnold get off your useless a$$es and do something FOR the state instead of WASTING more time and money on something that should be mandated by the parents..
USELESS GOVT !
This isn't an appeal. This is a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will probably be denied like most petitions.
I don't really see the analogy to the Roper case either; that was an Eighth Amendment case involving "evolving standards of decency" about cruel and unusual punishments. I think the Court would probably want to avoid this case entirely.
How do you define violence anyway? I certainly don't think the State of California could prohibit children from watching Vietnam war footage.
As always, it scares me a little when my joke posts get modded "insighful/interesting/informative" and when my insighful/interesting/informative posts get modded "funny."
Dear California,
As one of the most expensive states in the Union already, and with an electorate who just told you today that we want less government for less money, why are you spending your time on this kind of garbage? Don't you have bigger problems to face?
"It's the height of ridiculousness to say for those 9 lines you get hundreds of millions."
Illinois passed a video game law that got ruled unconstitutional and then they had to pay the Entertainment Software Association's lawyer bills
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Car are a NECESSITY with the way the housing/inhabitation and work place are spread. Gun are a necessity because.... ? Car death are mostly unintentionnal. Accidental Gun death are how many % ... ?
Now you would have a point if you compared gun to , say, the sale of swords or other instrument necessary to kill, instead of comparing apple to orange.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
Please do your damned job and stop blaming your faults on everyone else. When you purchased "Psycho killers do coke and kill whores 2" did you check the rating (which is 18 by the way) that's on the front of the game box before giving it to your little angel? Thought not.
Maybe if you'd actually pay attention to what your child is doing and how your child is behaving, you wouldn't have them grabbing your gun and shooting everyone in their school up because they were bullied so damned much that they felt it was the only way out.
For the record BOTH my parents worked but they still managed to raise me and my sister properly. She's now married. I am also classed as "special needs" due to my disability so there's NO EXCUSE for you to be a lazy fucktard. I also played Mortal Kombat when it first came out and I never tried ripping anyone in half.
For those of you who are good parents, please keep it up and don't let these lazy, good for nothing excuses for parents win this battle.
Thank you for your time in reading this.
...and assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children.
Parents don't need yet another law to give them the ability to keep harmful video games out of the hands of their children. They already have that ability. They just need to exercise said ability more often.
It's not the government's job to raise our children.
The proper role in this situation would be more like posting an advisory that certain studies link video game violence to this that or the other(assuming said studies even exist) but it should be up to a parent/guardian to make the decision.
...quicker, easier, more seductive the darkside is...but more powerful, it is not.
It's a petition for a writ of certiorari, which for all practical purposes, is an appeal, albeit not a guaranteed one. That said, I don't think I used the word "appeal" anywhere in my post.... I described it as a case, which it is. The case has been decided, but they are asking the SCOTUS to review it and possibly overturn it, so it is still effectively ongoing until such time as they deny certiorari.
I also didn't mention the Roper case or violence. Are you sure you meant to reply to me?
On the issue of violence, though, sure they could. Kids are not allowed to see R-rated movies in theaters, and video stores are not allowed to rent violent movies to children. I don't see a difference. That's a big part of why we have an industry rating system. All the people trying to draw comparisons to movies and claiming that kids can watch violent movies clearly haven't noticed that any excessively violent programming can only be seen on TV late at night, and other avenues for watching such content have been blocked for years. If anything, arguing that video games should be treated like movies is essentially arguing that laws like this should be encouraged.
Check out my sci-fi/humor trilogy at PatriotsBooks.
That's why we have the ESRB and ratings of Mature, which laws protect against kids buying the games.
From that point on, it's the parents decision.
I think instead of not exposing kids to video games, we should make laws against exposing kids to religion, one of the two actually has negative consequence.
Has the old saint in his forest not yet heard of it? That God is dead?