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."
Good. Maybe this will teach future political leaders that censorship is a bad idea.
Oh who am I kidding, these idiots never learn anything.
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.
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.
Well that and it's a fundamentally bigotted, ignorant law that the state's lawyers are well aware is indefensible. The Mormons can ironically defend "traditional marriage" all they want, ultimately it's their money to lose; not the taxpayer's.
There's no -1 for "I don't get it."
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".
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.
Exactly. He's be justified if they were. Sex is pure unadulterated evil! I remember accidentally seeing my dad's porn magazines when I was a kid. From that moment on, I was no longer sane. I've been a rapist, a pedophile, and a terrorist ever since.
And I do drugs.
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.
Both of those that you list kids could see with parental permission. But more importantly than that, the rating system in Hollywood and the Video Game industries is voluntary. There is no law against kids seeing an R rated film, just a theater owner's agreement. A big part of that is if the rating were given the force of law, it would need to hold up to scrutiny. As it stands, there are a lot of societal standards and other things which don't necessarily hold up to government oversight, and the ratings process is entirely opaque for fear of influence scandals.
So yes, reward retailers who adhere to the ratings standards, be it movies or games. But there are major, obvious constitutionality challenges in giving a voluntary system the force of law.
The ______ Agenda
Why do you presume that short term limits are going to prevent corruption? Why wouldn't it just mean that they'll do even more blatant bullshit since it doesn't matter anyway since they have no worries about re-election?
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
Americans? Hey thanks! Thanks for generalizing the actions of a few self-righteous-morons to the entire populous. Should I assume the same to where ever you're from? I can tell you that I won't, because I'm not that naive -- I can't say the same for you.
Incorrect. Some states have successfully made it illegal for anyone under the MPAA or ESRB rating to see the movie or purchase the game without parental permission. The California law was thrown out for how it was implemented, the legality of enforcing the MPAA and ESRB ratings has already been established by the courts, it simply requires certain steps and procedures the Cali law failed to follow.
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.
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.
It's the parent's responsibility to monitor what a child does. That's why laws that make the parent buy this stuff are wrong. Duh!
There is no "I disagree" mod for a reason. Flamebait, Troll, and Overrated are not substitutes.
they don't have the right to drive, to smoke
Since when were either of those things considered rights? There are many ways that you can lose your privilege to drive. Not to smoke, though (which is understandable since it only hurts yourself in most cases).
I don't understand the ban on smoking. But that isn't a constitutional right. Actually, most of these arbitrary restrictions on children are quite idiotic. The first amendment makes no such distinctions. Therefore, I think if you wish to infringe upon a child's right to free speech (the government, I mean), you need to first amend the constitution.
If they don't do that first, then they're just ignoring what the constitution says (no surprise, there).
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?
Sure, why not? And I'm being perfectly serious.
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.
The smartest criminals do not violate laws. They bend/exploit them, breaking the spirit of law, but not the letter.
Coding etudes
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.
"The pen is mightier than the sword" doesn't just hold for warfare. It applies to crime too.
Give me Classic Slashdot or give me death!
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.
If you break a law's spirit, does it get depressed and eat a lot?
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.
You are playing word games, I assume the right to vote isn't a right either?
What? I'm fairly certain it is. The constitution merely grants the right only to certain people.
Those aren't word games.
The thing is, children are not full citizens
The thing is, this law is pointless censorship. They're trying to restrict the sale of something because they think it's harmful when they don't have any evidence to back that up (and crime statistics point to a different conclusion).
Also, how is punishing people for giving out "speech" (in this case, games) not a violation of someone's freedom of speech? Imagine if the government punished someone for giving out a letter to someone else. This is a good example of that, but they're only punished if they give it out to a certain group. This has nothing to do with the freedom of speech of children (which still exists since the constitution makes no such distinctions no matter what examples of age discrimination you bring up).
Furthermore, while you might view children as subhumans, I do not.
I'm not aware of any such state. Can you identify these "some states"?
No, he can't, because he's talking out of his ass.
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.
Nope. totally wrong. Film and videogame ratings are NOT legally enforced anywhere in the USA. ALL film and videogame ratings are voluntary and enforced by the industry not the force of law.
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
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
as usual , i wonder how much it would save the world on a daily basis if we shot all lawyers and legalists alike to the moon ... or maybe a bit further away
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
I think you need to re-watch the The Next Generation pilot if you think sending lawyers and legalists to the moon would be a good idea. Once you take away those who understand and apply the law, you cease to have any practical law.
Unless, of course, you're going to create a comprehensive legal system whereby the layman can fully understand and apply it... but good luck with that.
The other thing you have to remember in situations like this is that lawyers don't make decisions (in theory), they just advise. It was the California legislature/executive that decided to go with this law, and then fight the challenge; either they received bad advice from their lawyers (about the legality of the law), in which case they should be suing the lawyers for negligence etc., or they ignored the advice, or they didn't seek it (in which case, you can't really blame the lawyers). Alternatively, the issue was close enough that it needed litigating just to find out what the answer was (sometimes that does happen). In that case, aside from placing tougher restrictions on what lawyers can charge (which is usually a good idea) and generally trying to drive down the cost of legal services, there's not much you can do.
Perhaps I should have added an "I am a law student, currently provide some legal services (for free) and aim to be a lawyer in a few years" disclaimer to that...
Many lawyers are aware of their image; and try to do as much free work as they can - unfortunately in many places the cost of being a lawyer is high enough to make that difficult.
my problem is the rigidity of law in combination with those who create it ... and the fact that judges have this kind of absolute power, maybe you still have some trust in the system as it is, but that (if i may be so bold to assume) would imply that you (most likely) never got into any real conflict with it where you had to defend, i myself am grateful to at least one lawyer for being a shield against people who would like to destroy and suck the last drop of blood out of me, but the kind i'm talking about are nothing but leeches looking for, lawyers morals have to include not pro-actively going for any flaw, that's 'hacking' the law if you catch my drift and i'm sure you do since you're on here. English is not my native language so i might fail in accurately describing the nuance of my view but i hope i clarified it a little. I know 'law', no matter how evil the concept in itself is an absolute necessity with humanity as it is but that's no excuse for the trend of the past what, ten years now? the first years it was pretty invisible but it was there, brooding ... just like police, lawyers and judges are selected by wrong criteria and they definitely are not checked upon their moral grounds themselves before they get into play, neutrality is an absolute necessity, it would require super-humanity of sorts , i know that, but even if evolution has come to a standstill because it's been outsourced to technology, the skynet becoming a reality, even then, it's no excuse to close your eyes and just sit by it
Free speech was meant to be free for all... how can anyone grow up in a nanny state ?
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.