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."
Great, you found a micro example of how Wikipedia has failed once. And besides, that's from the Irish Times. Real credible, you know they are drunk when they're writing that stuff?
Do you trust google searches?
"Engineering. Where the noble, semi-skilled laborers execute the vision of those who think and dream." -Sheldon
"Very nice straw man fallacy. Owning a gun doesn't suddenly make someone selfish or inclined to shoot anyone he doesn't like."
Not so much as a straw man as you took that out of context. Being American and therefore batshit-crazy makes you selfish. It's mostly true too.
Why bother