Slashdot Mirror
Unconstitutional Video Game Law Costs California $2 Million
An anonymous reader writes "In hopes of protecting the children of California from the ravages of violent video games, then governor Arnold Schwarzenegger attempted to push through a law that would fine retailers $1000 for each infraction of selling a violent game to an underage child. However, in the wake of appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down the law, California is now forced to pay the legal fees of all parties to the tune of two million dollars."
Ah, government doing what it does best!
Good. Maybe this will teach future political leaders that censorship is a bad idea.
Oh who am I kidding, these idiots never learn anything.
All the money in the budget was blown! Three times over, but that's a whole different problem.
Captcha was brains.
I swear, there's an irony meter somewhere.
Where do you think the government is going to get those two million dollars? From the very tax payers they abused in the first place. What a pointless gesture. This will not deter future governors or legislators from pushing through other unconstitutional regulations.
Seriously. Sick and tired of him... It's Yee's baby, he should bloody well pay for the mess it made.
for wasting money, and granted this was waste in the name of violating rights and legislating morality, when you get down to it $2,000,000 is rather cheap for a screw up of this scale.
The preceding post was not a Slashvertisement.
California still owes my cousin her tax refunds from 4 years ago onward (something like $8500 total). That place is seriously fucked.
Good. Maybe this will teach future political leaders that censorship is a bad idea. Oh who am I kidding, these idiots never learn anything.
That is not quite true. You have a very different perspective than the politicians. The politicians have already banked the votes of frightened parents. Wasting money and time and going counter to the constitution are irrelevant to them. All they care about are the votes and the likely voters are the silly frightened parents and not the gamers.
It is amazing to watch the very same people who in their youth were outraged when Al Gore led his crusade against music become the middle aged people who support a crusade against video games.
Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to prevent children from experiencing violence?
Come on...this should have been submitted in the slashdot summary within the first two or three sentences.
Created by California lawmaker Former San Francisco Democratic Assemblyman Leland Yee, now a senator, in the hopes of curbing children’s access to games that allow for assassination, violent crimes, rape, etc.
Seems this was a law the Democrats "attempted to push through".
It was the taxpayers that footed the bill. Didn't cost the politicians a single cent. If they learned anything, it is that their actions always cost someone else.
Why strike down the source of inspired violence when it feeds industries across the board. People will only commit the kinds of violence for what they can comprehend, and in many societies where creative thinking is disuaded then the'll only see the kinds of crimes committed for where they were derived. Remember that the Pipe-bomb throwing of the Columbine Event (more like massacre, seeing as the COPS wouldn't enter for 2 hours since arrival) was inspired by Doom 2 and not They Live /staring Duke Nukem instead of moral-man Roudy Roddy Piper.
Take it from me: professional wrestling is pretty hardcore stuff to the general population that is fragile-enough to commit those non-intelligent acts of violence. The smarter criminals go to Universities, into technology courses, because that is the kind of unregulated violence that we know something is hiding but can't discern what.
Did he think the violent games were pornographic somehow?
Only faggots and aspies read Slashdot.
Which one are you?
Neither? Then kindly fuck off.
And there is nothing wrong with barring kids from going to see Saw 5 or Basic Instinct.
There is nothing wrong with telling parents "Oh, this game allows you to simulate killing prostitutes". If you think its ok for a 5 year old kid to have 'fun' killing prostitutes and stealing their money, then you have serious issues.
selling violent video games to kids is about as bad as selling them pornography
So, in other words, completely harmless.
it primes them to support things like the Iraq War
Wow. Where did that come from? "I played a violent video game. Therefore, the Iraq war is good!" That sounds like a highly probable scenario. Especially since no evidence of such a thing happening to a majority of people was given.
Violent brutality in video games should only be depicted between a man and a woman, man on man violence sends the wrong message to our children and encourages deviant behaviour.
you dont have a 'right' to sell children simulated experiences of murdering prostitutes and robbing them, any more than you have a 'right' to sell them simulated experiences of fucking prostitutes, or to put cigarette advertising inside of comic books.
of all the actual, real censorship going on in society today, namely, people like Thomas Drake, Stephen Kim, and others being charged with Espionage for simply talking to reporters.... thats what REAL censorship is. i would love to see the people who get butthurt about people disapproving of having 4 year olds simulate murdering prostitutes and dealing drugs, actually speak out against things like the government's treatment of Diane Roark, or the way that Goldman Sachs tries to hush up people talking about oil prices (Leah McGrath Goodman).
oh, but no. lets defend people who want to sell rape fantasies to children. because their rights are what the first amendment is all about. where was the ACLU when Jesselyn Radack was being threatened with prison for simply talking to a reporter about the governments lies? While it is defending video game makers, it did not run to support her.
The ludicrous disconnect between these video game advocates and what is actually, really going on with the first amendment in this country is just mind boggling. Unless, of course, you explain it by the simple profit motive. That is what makes most sense. Regulation of video games would cost money for EA and other 'free speech' advocates. That is why they are against regulation.
Of course, try being an EA employee without signing an NDA agreement. Try being an EA empoyee and talk about forming a Union. Try being a worker at best buy or apple or any other place that sells video games, and talk about better working conditions, higher pay, etc. Then we will see how much these 'free speech advocates' actually care about free speech.... in the end, they make a mockery of themselves. The only regulations they care about are the ones that might hit them in the wallet.
*points at California*
Ha ha.
You know they wanted to do this to comic books.
Sounds silly. How retarded do you have to be to buy into this shit over and over.
Short term limits for the win. Career politicians should be burned at the stake. They cost the taxpayers money for stupid shit like this. Stupid shit that serves no practical purpose to the public in the first place. And for what its worth $2m is chump change which will be forgotten next week if it hasn't been already. Make it $200m or even $2b and it'd make an overnight difference.
Ah, but I am a dreamer. Too bad its not the American Dream.
Really, how many times have laws like this been made unconstitutional? Considering there is already an agency that rates video games, (the ESRB), that is a thousand times more accurate then the MPAA, why not just do the obvious, and restrict the sale of M rated games to minors. They already have precendence with the MPAA, so it can't be thrown out. It will keep kids pure, (until their 18th birthday), and it won't cost them the millions they seem to like spending on it.
It's the old dichotomy, the politicians who keep wasting out time are either evil or incredibly stupid.
selling violent video games to kids is about as bad as selling them pornography, or letting cigarette companies target them with advertising. it primes them to support things like the Iraq War, or the coming Iran War, which will bankrupt this country and dehumanize the nation.
Jack Thompson, is that you?
Eagles may soar, but weasels don't get sucked into jet engines.
Nope.
Liberty in your lifetime
The time spent on legislating, the time spent on making it official, the time *some* people might have spent actually enforcing that law, all that adds up to more than 2 million $, probably by an order of magnitude at least. They are only counting the fee the state has to pay.
C. Sagan : A demon haunted world:
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0345409469/
visit randi.org
There is nothing wrong with telling parents "Oh, this game allows you to ..."
Agreed. Informative labels are fine. Stores deciding for themselves that they do not want to carry products with a certain label is fine. I do however think that we have crossed a line when the courts or the police get involved because of foul language or simulated violence.
Children are not adults, they don't have the right to drive, to smoke, etc., ergo making this a freedom of speech issue, while almost simultaneously spraying peaceful protesters with load of pepper spray is just so fucked up.
Plus, if we take this to the next consequent level, it should be perfectly legal for a 10 year old to buy some nice gay-porn, yes?
selling violent video games to kids is about as bad as selling them pornography
So, in other words, completely harmless.
So you let your 5-yr-old look at porn? Do you show porn to the neighbor kids?
it primes them to support things like the Iraq War
Wow. Where did that come from? "I played a violent video game. Therefore, the Iraq war is good!" That sounds like a highly probable scenario. Especially since no evidence of such a thing happening to a majority of people was given.
Are you 5?
Answer this: Who is responsible for a child's actions? What is wrong with the state making sure that the person responsible is actually the one buying the game or movie?
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
selling violent video games to kids is about as bad as selling them pornography
it primes them to support things like the Iraq War
We should ban chess. It is violent. It was invented in Iran. If that's not a gateway to supporting war in Iran I don't know what is!
So you let your 5-yr-old look at porn? Do you show porn to the neighbor kids?
I'm not going to go showing anyone porn. I wouldn't go around showing anyone movies (of any kind), either.
But if they look at it? I don't care.
Are you 5?
Is that relevant? Are you 10? Are you 12? Are you 4? Are you 6? Is this meaningful?
Who is responsible for a child's actions?
Hopefully not anyone with a mind like Jack Thompson's.
What is wrong with the state making sure that the person responsible is actually the one buying the game or movie?
Because there's no evidence that we should actually care if a child buys a video game. Your answer seems to be to ban something by default. Mine is the exact opposite.
That said, the state doesn't do that anyway. And I don't think they should. I prefer company censorship over government censorship any day.
I'm not going to go showing anyone porn.
Besides, unless the porn had an engaging story, why would I ever want to show it to anyone? It would be like showing someone an awful film.
Unless you intend to masturbate, it's rather pointless. And I certainly don't want some person I'm not ever going to have sex with (hopefully) see me do that.
Chances are a five year old wouldn't even understand it.
I actually found my dad's porn magazines when I was about 7. Anecdotal evidence, maybe, but I certainly didn't go insane. I remember thinking it was gross, pondering it for a minute, and putting it back.
Don't they tax a cow $2 million if it farts any methane in California?
Expensive lesson for tax payers. This is what you get when you elect the current crop of retards running your state.
"Remember ven I promised to be a good Governor someday? *I lied* ..."
If you measure it in downloaded songs.
... the taxpayers?!
AKA he'd not be where he is without it....EMBRACE IT ARNIE.
So far as I understand it, the very slight evidence available is the opposite. That sexually explicit rape-oriented games and videos allow those inclined to such things get their needs out of their systems and therefore be less likely to do them for real, not more. I.e that video game violence /prevents/ real world violence.
However, I would be the first to agree that the evidence is slight (two small studies of about 100 subjects, IIRC - and sorry, I didn't see the underlying data, only references to it). But I do feel that making legislation on the basis of "it is common sense", "it stands to reason" etc is crazy. And you should not be legislating until you have proof of actual harm, not personal distaste for other people's likings.
An awful lot of criminal legislation seems to be pushed by people wanting prevent people like themselves from doing things that they wouldn't do anyway. They don't get the point that people who do commit such crimes are not like them, and may not be deterred or otherwise affected by things that would deter them.
Consciousness is an illusion caused by an excess of self consciousness.
how many years were you in the coma? glad you're awake but the worlds changed a lot since you've been out of commission...
All this fascist activity started when the US Constitution got shredded, all of it goes away when the US Constitution is restored.
Until then, things will get worse, the monetary system will collapse, and more people will die in these undeclared wars.
If our representatives obeyed their oath of office, and upheld the US Constitution, unconstitutional video game laws would not even be allowed to be introduced in the first place.
My opinion is sworn officials who actually introduce unconstitutional agenda (an action completed) ought to be punished for it. This will give officials who swear an oath to protect the US Constitution and then break that oath, something to be fearful of. You should have butterflies in your stomach if you are a public servant, you are being graced with the public trust, but today these oath breaking psychopaths are not scared of anything, because there are no consequences for breaking their oath, the law or the public trust.
Here's a nice example of globalist CORRUPTION at the local level. (that's why I been saying watch your fuckin local city council)
K-12 Climate Education Project
Payments to David Wojick for K-12 Global Warming Lesson Plan modules plus a Website featuring the same. Estimate quarterly payments of $25,000 in June, September, and December.
Lesson Objectives By the end of this lesson, (little motherfuckin brainwashed globalist greetards) students will:
1. Form definitions of the greenhouse effect based on prior knowledge, class discussion, and viewing diagrams.
2. Participate in group brainstorming (brainwashing) sessions and class discussions related to the impact of the greenhouse effect and global warming.
3. Analyze global warming diagrams and resources to obtain a clear understanding of this scientific process. (except for the SUN, HAARP TECHNOLOGY, Aerial Spraying)
4. Hypothesize about the effects of global warming on the climate and the world's populations. (make up more fiction)
5. Conduct research using a variety of primary sources to explore perspectives in the global warming debate. (primary sources we give you)
6. Complete a Venn Diagram that compares various points of view on global warming issues. (sustainable GMO Corn)
7. Take a position on global warming and support this viewpoint with reasons, facts, and examples gathered during lesson activities.
8. Create a project that supports their point of view about global warming issues. (create new carbon tax propaganda nazis for the globalist banksters and globalist government under Agenda 21)
Standard 14: Understands how human actions modify the physical environment.
(yeah using HAARP TECHNOLOGY and Aerial spraying in the age old Hegelian Dialectic PROBLEM, REACTION, SOLUTION
PROBLEM (Unseen people change the weather using haarp technology and aerial spraying with nasty shit in the air, all with no public oversight, they blame it on people's cars, and coal, etc.)
REACTION (Stir up the people, oh it's so bad we have to fight the gobal warming monsters, please government we want to give up our rights to save the world -when in reality the UN/NATO/and private corps CAUSED the problem)
finally the government offers the SOLUTION, (the UN, UNEP, IPCC, Green Tard Movement, Carbon Tax, Agenda 21, eugenics all infiltrate the EPA, the local city council, giving up sovereignty, signing treaties they ought to be shot for treason. )
But I digress.
RESTORE THE US CONSTITUTION
Because when some kid at school goes all postal, it will be found that they're a loner (well nobody wants to admit they were close friends with them any more), play computer games (like 100% of kids) and that they play violent computer games (like 100% of the boys over the age of 10), therefore the violent games MUST be the cause of it!
THEREFORE "to protect the children", these games will be lobbied to be banned or a law to be made to refuse minors to buy them.
Then, when implemented, those who didn't give a rats ass about violent games, who don't want to have to listen to their precious darling complain about how Murder Death Kill 2000 isn't being sold to them, so you have to tear yourself away and buy it for them (the imposition!) but didn't say a damn thing when the complaints about violent games were pushing politicians to pass laws, will then complain just as bitterly.
And guess what? The politicians will be blamed and "the taxes! they do nothing!" will be the whine.
Well, guess what: since you sat on your fat arses and did nothing, you DESERVE to pay taxes to cover it. You could have saved the cost by raising the problem earlier.
But that would require you to do work, wouldn't it.
Your argument is invalid.
Equating kiddie porn to video games? One does imaginary harm, the other documents actual harm to a child. Society, except apparently you, has decided to invest effort in singling out people who would produce and/or consume child pornography because they are vile.
It's a shame the taxpayers of California will have to foot the bill on this, and not the reckless politicians who put this silly law in the first place.
But what exactly is wrong with not selling children games/movies that have been rated as suitable for over 18s only?
The argument that you should be treated as an adult at 16 is one I find quite compelling, but in the meantime the law is the law, and you can't vote for instance (in the UK, but this may change to 16 at least in Scotland).
To have a right to do a thing is not at all the same as to be right in doing it
This isn't a victory for computer geeks or video games. It's just an obvious corrolary of existing law and precedent. Read the ruling. If CA chose to ban violent content across all medium to children, then ruling probably would be different... They would be hard pressed to over turn it. I.e. since kids can buy violent comics, they can buy violent video games. If the video game incited violence, fx. via a directive sentence "Kill your class mates!" (Not as a character script or game play device but as a directive external to the game), well, then CA could restrict sale of such games.
except tobacco has been shown to have negative effects. videogames have not. Even pornography laws are not nearly as cut and dry as people like to think they are. In the USA what is and is not pornographic is frequently subject to lawsuits.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
What is wrong with the state making sure that the person responsible is actually the one buying the game or movie?
It violates the first amendment. The Supreme Court said so. I'm guessing they know more about law than me or most of the people here.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
Terminated.
The taxpayers are going to end up paying it, as usual. The people responsible for unconstitutionally going after businesses should be the ones to have to pay the fines, not the taxpayer. Hiding behind the state to rip off the public is as American as apple pie. And accepting it as business as usual is, too.