California Legislature Passes Violent Game Bill 218
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?"
1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:3, Interesting)
California? (Score:4, Interesting)
If you didn't vote Libertarian (Score:2, Interesting)
___________________________________________
A vote against a Libertarian candidate is
a vote to abolish the Constitution itself.
Its abotu the teenagers, not the children. (Score:1, Interesting)
Re:Restrict the sale to children? (Score:2, Interesting)
Re:Explain this to me again... (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm not quite sure what games exactly are covered, but I guess gory fighting games and shooters aren't, as long as they're two-player! Seriously, I used to work at a game store, and I feel bad for anyone who has to figure out which games this actually covers, and if they get it wrong, it's a $1000 fine. Now you could say that they just shouldn't sell M-rated games to minors and they should be fine, but then why doesn't the bill just say M-rated games shouldn't be sold to minors if that's what it's supposed to mean?!?
Also, oddly enough, the bill doesn't have an exception for family members. So technically, if I gave my (future potential) 17 year old daughter GTA, I could get fined $1000. Wouldn't that be great?
And stickers annoy me.
Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:2, Interesting)
Oddly enough, I don't recall seeing an "obscenity" exception in the text of the First Amendment. Yes, the government has decided that it has such power, but such decision to exclude "obscene" material is in no way supported by the First Amendment.
Re:1st Admendment Rights lost? (Score:3, Interesting)
Just because you want to sit on your hands and treat him like a knowledgable adult, doesn't mean that you have the right to make other people suffer at your ignorance. Ever hear the saying, "If only I knew then what I know now." That's what it's about. Giving all kids (Even the ones with bad parents) the right to learn then so that they have a chance in not making harmful descisions.
Look at smoking for example. Most smokers start when they are underage. They don't know any better and they are still disillusioned to the consequence. You don't hear of a 35 year old adult deciding that he wants to be "cool" and smoke. Let's think about it.
Finally, it takes a villiage to raise a child.