Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments
Search

News for nerds, stuff that matters

Slashdot Log In

Log In

Create Account  |  Retrieve Password

CA Game Bill Struck Down, Governor Vows Appeal

Posted by Zonk on Tue Aug 07, 2007 12:35 PM
from the like-a-bad-tennis-match dept.
Government Entertainment Games Politics
GamePolitics has the full story today on the removal of California's violent games law. A judge has found it unconstitutional after a protracted legal battle. The law was originally passed back in 2005. "The bill, championed by then-Assembly Speaker Leland Yee (D) was signed into law by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (left) on October 7th, 2005. The video game industry filed suit to block the law 10 days later. Judge Ronald Whyte issued a preliminary injunction on December 22nd, blocking the California law from its planned effective date of January 1st, 2006. Since then, both sides have been waiting for Judge Whyte's final ruling. Today it has come." The law's sponsor Leland Yee is quite disappointed by the ruling, of course, and Governor Schwarzenegger plans to appeal the decision.
+ -
story

Related Stories

[+] California Legislature Passes Violent Game Bill 218 comments
404Ender writes "In a move similar to the passage of a law designed to restrict the sale of violent video games to children in Illinois, California is now awaiting only the signature of Governor Schwarzenegger before a similar bill becomes a law. Does this action signal the start of a disturbing trend of the restriction of First Amendment rights? How can we as gamers fight back against this type of government action?"
[+] Politics: Schwarzenegger's Appeal of CA Games Bill Under Fire 63 comments
The CA games bill struck down last week to cheers is currently in a holding pattern as Governor Schwarzenegger works on an appeal. His decision to fight the judiciary is coming under fire from several sources. The ESA has mounted a campaign against the initiative through its Videogame Voters Network. Even the media is objecting, with an opinion in the LA Times telling the governor not to bother. "Having made a career off fantasy violence, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger is an odd advocate for the regulation of violent video games. After all, his face (and, sometimes, his voice) helps to sell a number of electronic kill-fests. Yet there he was last week, pledging to appeal a federal judge's decision against a state law banning the sale of such games to minors."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.

CA Game Bill Struck Down, Governor Vows Appeal 50 Comments More /

 Full
 Abbreviated
 Hidden
More
Loading... please wait.

  • Irony (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KoldKompress (1034414) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @12:39PM (#20144337)
    Is it just me, or does it seem hypocritical that Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes this? He's been in some incredibly violent movies, after all.

    Why do people see the two mediums as being so distant? What passes as an R for a movie, would be an AO for a game, like Manhunt.

    I believe that people of earlier generations do not understand games - they see an interactive medium and believe that the interactivity somehow makes it more personal, or influencial. Yet I think any well adjusted person who plays video games know they're just that - games.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by faloi (738831)
      Hypocritical, yes. Understandable, yes.

      Like so many things, one just has to follow the money. Lots of senators and governors who enjoy a lot of money from the *AA type groups are all too eager to jump on the bandwagon against violent video games. It avoids having to answer hard questions about what your supporters do to earn money, and gives you a chance to "save the children."
    • Could not have said it better myself. We do not need any new laws dictating how parents should raise their kids. We already have those, and in an ideal situation, where the parent is not doing a proper job of raising their kids, we have social services to resolve the issue (again, in an ideal world were social services is not a screwed up entity)

    • Re:Irony (Score:5, Funny)

      by Floritard (1058660) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @12:54PM (#20144549)
      If you'd played the games [youtube.com] based on his movies, you'd understand his anger.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by jonnythan (79727)
      He has been in some incredibly violent movies, but minors are not allowed to buy those movies.

      I don't see any reason why minors should be allowed to buy incredibly violent video games.

      • Re:Irony (Score:5, Informative)

        by Kamots (321174) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @01:19PM (#20144931)
        You do realize that there's no legislation making it illegal for minors to buy violent movies?

        You do realize that the only meaningful difference in the sale of violent movies and games comes from apathetic parents that when they hear "game" they translate it as "appropriate for 10 year old"?

        Get parents to treat games the same way they do movies, i.e. get them to check the freaking rating before letting little Johnny have it, and there won't be an issue.

        But... that requires parents take responsibility. Nope, can't have that! Lets pass some laws instead!

        *sigh*
        • "You do realize that there's no legislation making it illegal for minors to buy violent movies?"

          Yes, I absolutely do realize that.

          However, do you think that the government would hesitate to pass such legislation if the film industry hadn't already taken care of this itself?

          The video game industry has *not* taken care of this itself. It apparently refuses to. The video game industry should absolutely not be surprised that the government is attempting to step in and force the issue.

          The difference between the

          • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

            by Kamots (321174)
            "The video game industry has *not* taken care of this itself. It apparently refuses to."

            Care to back that up?

            Essentially the same system is in place for movies and video games. If anything video game ratings are more restrictive than movie ratings. Both rating systems are voluntarily enforced by retailers, and if you look at any major video/game retailer you'll see very similar if not identical policies are in place regarding the sale of games and movies to minors.

            • Re:Irony (Score:5, Insightful)

              by Applekid (993327) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @02:01PM (#20145567)

              "The video game industry has *not* taken care of this itself. It apparently refuses to."

              Care to back that up?
              Actually, yeah, there's no gaming lobby trying to win favors from those in power. The shakeup from government into the gaming sector is pretty much the same as a shakedown to see what sort of money will fall out from them in the end.

          • Re: (Score:2, Interesting)

            by spamking (967666)

            I wasn't aware that the movie industry had people situated in theaters and retail stores around the country that conducted ID checks on everyone who purchased "R-rated" movie tickets or DVDs. The punk kids at the local theater in my home town sure don't mess with checking IDs. And I haven't noticed most retailers giving it much thought/effort either.

            While I see your point about the rating system, it is ultimately up to the local theaters to deal with the ID checks, and even more so up to parents to make

          • The game industry has not? Can you actually buy a single game without a rating today? I cannot.
          • What does the MPAA do that the gaming ratings and review board doesn't?

            Both mediums get ratings, and the retailers are on the honor system to enforce them.

            Maybe the problem is the stores selling the games...
      • In the U.S. it is totally legal for minors to purchase those movies. The MPAA rating system is voluntarily enforced (at least in theory) by the movie theaters and retailers.
    • See you at the party, Richter! [i-mockery.com] (not work safe!)
    • Is it just me, or does it seem hypocritical that Arnold Schwarzenegger opposes this? He's been in some incredibly violent movies, after all.

      It's not hypocritical, but planned: After the children are deprived from videogame violence, they will crave the violence so they'll rush to the cinema to see his newest action film: "Governator 3: The judge's day". However, they'll be terrified when he says his last line on the movie: "I'll be back."
    • Oh c'mon, that's a no-brainer: Who'd want to watch violent movies when he can play the lead role himself?
    • I watched the movie "The Messengers" this weekend, and was struck by the fact that while the film was rated PG-13 a game that approached the same material would certainly be rated M.

      In case you don't know, it is a horror movie about a family that moves in to a house where the previous tenants had been brutally murdered and their ghosts haunt the home. Within the first five minutes three people die, two of them children. The first has her head splattered against a wall and the second is hurled down a stairca
    • It's not necessarily hypocritical. IIRC the bill blocks the sale of these video games to minors. I can't say for certain, but I'd wager that Arnold would sign a similar bill blocking R-rated movies from being sold to minors as well. Just because you are involved in the production of violent media doesn't mean you can't oppose the sale of that media to kids.

      I think his decision *was* largely political and not a matter of conscience, but that doesn't make him a hypocrite. Just a politician.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by HTH NE1 (675604)
        Kids imitating Superman and Spider-Man can do so safely in a game, sublimating the desire to do it by jumping off of rooftops.
  • the laws got one right for a change. Let parents and consumers decide what's right, not overly conservative right ring politicians. I have one set of parents, I don't need the Governator as another.

    • Re:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)

      by Compholio (770966) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @12:57PM (#20144585)

      the laws got one right for a change. Let parents and consumers decide what's right, not overly conservative right ring politicians. I have one set of parents, I don't need the Governator as another.
      Actually, the law got it wrong and it was corrected by the judicial branch. Note that people that disagree with judges doing things like this say that they're being "activist judges" and "going against the will of the people." Which, as it happens, is one of the purposes of the judicial branch as set forth by the constitution.

    • Re:Good for them (Score:4, Insightful)

      by Yahweh Doesn't Exist (906833) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @12:59PM (#20144603)
      >Let parents and consumers decide what's right, not overly conservative right ring politicians.

      are you some sort of completely retarded left-wing hippy? the right-wing typically advocates personal freedoms and responsibilities, as well as a generally small government with few restrictions on commerce. how could this law possibly be associated with right-wing politicians? they'd have to be totally ignorant of the facts, too stupid to think about things logically, and complete hypocrites. and you think people would ever vote for such politicians.

      go home troll, no way it'd ever happen...
      • While there was a time when the right wing did advocate for smaller government and conservitave spending, that is no longer the case and has not been since the mid 80's. Currently most right win polititions advocate for about the same level of government involvement as the liberasl do, all be it in a different way. This is the reason for all the right wing "third parties" who have formed. Many conservitaves want to see actuall spending reductions and smaller government which the mainstream right wing has

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by Belacgod (1103921)
        Where have you been living for the past 12 years? The right wing's just as bad as the left now on cultural content.
    • Minor quip: As a resident of California I would say that Arnold is hardly "overly conservative right wing". Not even close. He is more of a moderate conservative with some liberal leanings.

    • Re:Good for them (Score:4, Informative)

      by Rakarra (112805) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @02:41PM (#20146085)
      Calling the Governator overly conservative is quite a stretch. As another poster hinted, Arnold is more in the vein of 60's and 70's Republicans rather the neo-cons of the Reagan/Bush era. His biggest problem with the California Legislature at the moment is that he gets better results working with the Democrats than he does with the Republicans who don't think he's conservative enough. And the bill's author and primary sponsor is Leland Yee, a Democrat who's clueless about games, hardly a right-wing figure.

      When it comes to media censorship, the Democrats have not had a stellar track record.

  • Every time these stories about videogame laws come up someone asks what is wrong with having laws like this.

    Here's the problem:
    In the USA no other medium has its ratings enforced by the government. Not the music industry, not the comic book industry, not the internet, not tv, and not the film industry. The MPAA ratings are self-enforced. If someone under 17 isn't allowed into an R-rated movie without an adult it is because the movie industry is inforcing those rules, not the government.

    Therefore, if the videogame industry were to be singled out as the only medium to have its ratings enforced by the government there would have to be a mountain of evidence suggesting that violent videogames were harmful to minors. No such mountain exists. As such, these laws are misguided at best and hollow attempts on the part of politicians to appear "pro-family" at worst.
    • I'm sure that some people in the Comic Book industry could tell you about self enforcement [wikipedia.org] of social standards. The thing is, it's just not that relevant these days.
    • That's not the reason the bill is unconstitutional. It is because video games are a form of speech and as such are protected under the first amendment. Even if there was a massive indication that video games were harmful to children (and no such evidence exists), it would still be unconstitutional to put in place any sort of ban or restriction by the government.
      • I'm not legal expert but I believe that showing that there was some sort of legitimate harm would overcome the first amendment.

        Regardless, when people simply say that it is unconstitutional on first amendment grounds there are always those who are under the mistaken assumption that film ratings are government enforced and so this law and others like it would simply bring videogames into line with films. My perhaps poorly worded post was an attempt at cut off those kinds of posts.
        • If there is harm done in the creation of the content, usually the act displayed itself is already outlawed. But so far, I don't see how in a computer game a real life law could be broken (other than in real movies, where you can technically film a real crime).

          Other than that, I do not see a reason why content should be forbidden. Kept out of the hands of minors, or (better) left in the discretion of the child's caretakers, but outlawing content is a surefire way to go head on with the 1st amendment.
    • your post is interesting and the following thought occured to me: since other media aren't so heavily regulated could they be used as some sort of delivery mechanism? e.g. buy Manhunt 2 the book and by the way get a free shiny disk that allows access to bonus material when inserted into certain computers with specific requirements.

      it's clearly not a solution to the true problem though, but it would be interesting to see how the censors would respond when the freedom of speech issue is so clearly highlighted

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by bigbigbison (104532)
        I've not read the text of the proposed law but unless it requires all games to be rated then the simple solution is to not submit a game for a rating. Of course, that would probably prevent most stores from carrying it.

        When there are things like Steam, Gametap, X-Box live and other less legal online methods of game delivery, these types of laws are becoming increasingly meaningless anyway.

    • In the USA no other medium has its ratings enforced by the government. Not the music industry, not the comic book industry, not the internet, not tv, and not the film industry. The MPAA ratings are self-enforced. If someone under 17 isn't allowed into an R-rated movie without an adult it is because the movie industry is inforcing those rules, not the government.

      You have a very limited understanding of the situation.
      The state/federal government regulates all things "obscene".

      Obscene (sexual or violent) content in film, books, magazines, tv and video are all regulated. There are limits on how you can sell them, to whom you can sell them, where you can sell them and in the case of television, what time you can show it.

      The MPAA and other self-enforcing bodies were created to keep government from setting up regulations. In that light, I find it a bit disengenous to ma

      • However, this law was not about obscenity was it? It was about ratings.

        Moreover, there is no definition of obscenity but rather a test and as such things are declared obscene on a case by case basis.

        Yes, the MPAA rules were set up to cut off government enforcement. However, so were the videogame ratings.

        I fail to see what any of what you wrote indicates that I have a limited understanding of the situation. The situation as I see it is about government regulations of ratings and not obscenity. Nor is it
      • Yes but porn is a genre and not a medium. Those laws are on state or local levels. Sometimes it is something as vague as "material harmful to minors." It seems like at least once a year a comic book store will get busted for selling a comic book with depictions of sex or nudity in it to a minor but even in those cases it is often the case that the court has to determine if the comic book in question is "pornographic" or "harmful to minors."

        I"m not a lawyer though so if someone who is an expert in this wo
      • Those ratings are not enforced by the government. It is a voluntary system and as far as I know there isn't even a voluntary ratings system for radio.

        There are, however, decency guidelines for programming broadcast over the public airwaves. These, as the name would suggest, are guidelines and not specific rules. Why are they guidelines rather than specific rules? Because the FCC feels that spelling out specific rules would be censorship.

        It is a matter of semantics but the fact is the television r

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Ahnteis (746045)
        FCC has control over the limited public resource of the broadcast spectrum. They have no right to limit cable, private satellites, movie theatres, etc.

  • Go for the wallet (Score:3, Interesting)

    by RogueyWon (735973) * on Tuesday August 07 2007, @12:46PM (#20144431) Journal
    These bills have failed in enough States now that it must be 100% clear that they are never going to stand up to legal scrutiny and their passage can be nothing more than a political statement. Is there no way that the administrative cost of drafting them and the legal costs of defending them in court could be inflicted directly upon the legislators who still insist on trying to drive them through?
    • It's an unfortunate power of legislatures that they can continue to pass laws they know damn well are unconstitutional, with no obvious penalty to those who continue to vote in favor of such measures. The worst part is that whether they win or lose in court over these measures, they can claim that they were trying. They just offload the blame on to the judges.

      • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

        by Opportunist (166417)
        Why doesn't the other party use slogans like "Governer X has signed y laws into existance that were immediately thrown out by the court as unconstitutional"?

        I mean, the way I judge the US population, they start throwing fits when they hear their politicians do something against the constitution.
        • I dunno, does the US population do that? Certainly, certain groups (states rightists, the ACLU, the gun lobby) make lots of noise when legislatures try to make end-runs around the Constitution, but that hardly means the public at large does.
  • As far as I know, this isn't something that happens often. A judge looked at the law, the facts, etc, and said "Hey, that just doesn't make sense." My most sincere thanks to the judge.

  • It's just like with porn (Score:3, Informative)

    by Kawolski (939414) on Tuesday August 07 2007, @01:29PM (#20145095)
    They'll keep trying to pass laws like this because they've succeeded in passing laws that prohibit selling pornographic material to minors. Restricting the sale of "violent video games" is just seen as an extension of that, and it isn't a difficult task to convince U.S. government lawmakers that controlling a virtual character to chop another person's head off with gallons of blood flying everywhere is more or just as harmful to children as seeing a pair of exposed female breasts. Lobbying dollars are not required. After all, if the "think of the children" mantra didn't work, politicians wouldn't use it so damn often.
    • It's ironic, when you look at movies like Terminator, Conan and Predator where people bite it, often at his hand, in rather horrifying ways. But let's remember that politicians are essentially whores, so when they're taking it up the ass from some lobby they figure can get them a few more votes, they learn how to smile and make it look like they're sincere.

All trademarks and copyrights on this page are owned by their respective owners. Comments are owned by the Poster. The Rest © 1997-2009 Geeknet, Inc.