California Continues To Push For Violent Game Legislation

Back in February, the US Court of Appeals shot down a California law that banned the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. Shortly thereafter, State Senator Leland Yee petitioned the US Supreme Court to review the case. Now, along with California's Psychiatric and Psychological Associations, Yee has filed an amicus curiae brief with Court that elaborates on the reasoning behind the law. Within the brief (PDF) are some interesting quotes: "Parents can read a book, watch a movie or listen to a CD to discern if it is appropriate for their child. These violent video games, on the other hand, can contain up to 800 hours of footage with the most atrocious content often reserved for the highest levels and can be accessed only by advanced players after hours upon hours of progressive mastery. ... Notably, extended play has been observed to depress activity in the frontal cortex of the brain which controls executive thought and function, produces intentionality and the ability to plan sequences of action, and is the seat of self-reflection, discipline and self-control." The video game industry has filed its own amicus brief to dispute Yee's claims.

Comments

You don't need every child affected

[BadAnalogyGuy]

Not every child is directly affected. This is true.

However, sometimes there are secondary effects which do affect every child.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Columbine_High_School_massacre#Video_games

Re:The DON'T do the same with movies.

[OrangeMonkey11]

Because showing a child how to slaughter an entire family on screen is educational and informative

Re:The DON'T do the same with movies.

[A. B3ttik]

Did I SAY that or even imply it in any sense? No.

I said it's First Amendment issue... which it is.

Respond to my actual points, dammit.

espite common belief, they DON'T do the same with movies.

It's not a crime to let a three-year-old into R-Rated movie, or even to let him buy one. It's just against the rules of the movie union guys. It's actually covered under the First Amendment.

So why should it be a crime to sell a kid a violent or sexual game?

Yeah, it's all black and white...

[painehope]

...when you're talking about anything to do with Black and White people!

After all, if you're Black, you're poor and taken advantage of (OMFG, think of the slaves! Slavery! Evil white people! ...despite the fact the majority of slaves were sold to various European trading and investment groups, not necessarily ones run by Whites, by Black Africans! Whoops! Hate to burst that bubble...), and that free welfare check that you never have to do a damn thing for is some sort of sop. Gee, it must be so difficult to get paid to do nothing! Wow, what a hard job!

And the White oppressors get free health care! Yeah, I'm pretty sure that race was specifically listed on the Demoncrats health care bill...almost positive...uh, hang on, I don't see it mentioned anywhere, especially not favoring White people. Shit, another bubble pops!

Get in touch with reality, Junior. There's poor people and rich people of all races and nationalities, and everyone in between. The only people I give a shit about are the ones who are trying to actually get somewhere and do something useful with their lives. Everyone else can starve and die. Of course, with our current socialist political agenda, I believe everyone will soon be starving and dying. Who is John Galt?