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.
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."
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.
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?
FTA:
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".
And with the signature of the Republican governor, they did.
Jesus was all right but his disciples were thick and ordinary. -John Lennon
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.
The smartest criminals do not violate laws. They bend/exploit them, breaking the spirit of law, but not the letter.
Coding etudes
I'm not aware of any such state. Can you identify these "some states"?