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."

Comments

WTF?

[Locke2005]

...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!

Re:WTF?

[RsG]

The stupid thing is, parents already have those capabilities, no new laws required. A parent controls their child's finances, access to electronics, and most other decision making.

A parent can easily keep their kid from violent games. Don't buy a console, use proper precautions with computers (like requiring root access to install software and withholding the password), or failing that own a computer that can't be used for gaming (old, cheap or both). Don't buy them the games and assure relatives that you do not want the games given as presents. Do some very basic research.

None of these things are difficult. Most don't even require action, merely inaction, on the parent's part. A modern luddite, like those who support these laws, shouldn't find it difficult.

So, there are only two excuses for this idiocy. The first is that the people supporting these laws really are that lazy, or that unable to say no to their children. In which case, they need only look into a mirror to see the real problem. Laws won't solve the problem, unless those laws make reproduction a privilege.

The second, more likely, explanation is that they want to enforce their own style of parenting on everyone. Which isn't "assisting parents", it's forcing them to do things their way.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[0racle]

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.'

I remember this guy

[Red Flayer]

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?

Why a law in the first place?

[Kelson]

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?

Except the stores didn't sell to the kids

[Todd Knarr]

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.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[Archangel Michael]

Cars kill more people (42,000) in the US each year than do guns(30,000, more than 1/2 of those suicide), and there are more guns (200 million) in the US than cars(70 million). I know, why let the facts get in the way of a knew jerk reaction to guns?

Bowling for Columbine should be focused upon the Pharma industry, which has more to do with two kids going wacko than the guns and games did.

But that is MY opinion.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment

[sortius_nod]

>

Take this as another example. Australia recently banned guns, and had their firearm homocide rate TRIPLE!!!

[Citation Needed]

The only "evidence", if it can be called this, of an increase in violence are opinion pieces such as blogs and editorials. There are no statistics or research to back this up. As an Australian I am proud of our gun control laws and laugh every time I see some gun-nut claiming they've done harm.

This is just one site that shows how murders have NOT CHANGED and that gun related accidents have changed. They even state that assaults & other crime cannot be seen as a direct result of gun control laws.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html

Repeat after me

[Hojima]

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.