Want to read Slashdot from your mobile device? Point it at m.slashdot.org and keep reading!

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Government Entertainment Politics

ESA Seeks Money For Legal Fees From CA 54

Posted by Zonk from the man-he-has-a-long-name dept.
The Escapist is reporting that the Entertainment Software Association (ESA), frustrated with the costs incurred from their successful battle to overturn the state's violent videogame law, is now going after California for legal fees. "The ESA is claiming the legal battle, which led to the overturning of the "fundamentally flawed" law, cost a total of $324,840. If granted, it will bring the costs awarded to the industry in First Amendment defenses to nearly $1.9 million, spread across eight other jurisdictions that had attempted to pass similar laws." The site also reports that California Governor Schwarzenegger has followed through on his promise to appeal that overturn, seeking to restore the legislation championed by Leland Yee.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

ESA Seeks Money For Legal Fees From CA More

ESA Seeks Money For Legal Fees From CA

Comments Filter:

  • Good (Score:2)

    by eln ( 21727 ) *
    Maybe if they are able to recover more money, that the California taxpayers will eventually have to pay, the California voters will get pissed off and vote out the clowns that passed legislation they should have known would be doomed. It's bad enough to waste time and money passing blatantly unconstitutional laws, but even worse when similar laws have already been struck down by the courts in other jurisdictions. Were they hoping that every game publisher in the country would just let their law slide and

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by nomadic ( 141991 )
      the California voters will get pissed off and vote out the clowns that passed legislation they should have known would be doomed.

      These are California voters. The same people who elected Arnold Schwarzenegger. ARNOLD SCHWARZENEGGER. Do you think they're a rational group of people?
      • In related news, the violent videogame law was last seen walking away from the courthouse saying "I'll be back!"
      • The same people who elected Arnold Schwarzenegger.

        What, an actor can't be informed? They can't think critically or be well reasoned? Do you think he's only as smart as the character he played in Connan?

        • Re: (Score:2, Informative)

          by nomadic ( 141991 )
          What, an actor can't be informed? They can't think critically or be well reasoned? Do you think he's only as smart as the character he played in Connan?

          His campaign used his celebrity, not well-reasoned thought. He had almost no formal education, little experience politically, and was basically voted in because he was famous. It's not enough just to be "informed", "think critically", and be "well reasoned".

          • Re:Good (Score:4, Insightful)

            by ultranova ( 717540 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @12:24PM (#20509429)

            It's not enough just to be "informed", "think critically", and be "well reasoned".

            Maybe, but being any one of these would make one a better than average politician.

          • His campaign used his celebrity, not well-reasoned thought. He had almost no formal education, little experience politically, and was basically voted in because he was famous. It's not enough just to be "informed", "think critically", and be "well reasoned".

            And this is different than most politicians, how?

            Look, I am not saying that Arnold is some sort of genius... but the rhetoric, reasoning, and intelligence displayed by Arnold doesn't seem any different than any other politician. And at least Arnold was a very successful buisnessman... unlike most career politicians who haven't worked an honest job in their lives.

            Have you even watched a presidential debate? Their "debate" wouldn't even cut it for a high-school debate team.

            Arnold fits into politics perfectly

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )

            His campaign used his celebrity, not well-reasoned thought. He had almost no formal education, little experience politically, and was basically voted in because he was famous. It's not enough just to be "informed", "think critically", and be "well reasoned".

            He also had a long name amongst a large list of candidates on the same ballot reordered to an alternate alphabet (RWQ...) and rotated between districts for "fairness", making searching for "long straw" names(*) the easiest method to find his name while disadvantaging shorter names(**).

            (*) The only names to be printed longer on the ballot [wikipedia.org] were Lawrence Steven Strauss; William "Bill" S. Chambers; D. (Logan Darrow) Clements; Nathan Whitecloud Walton; Kurt E. "Tachikaze" Rightmyer (the longest); Charles "Chuck

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by nuzak ( 959558 )
            > He had almost no formal education, little experience politically, and was basically voted in because he was famous.

            Probably right about why he was voted in. In his defense, he was President of the Screen Actors Guild. Anyone who can manage that bunch of prima donnas has some political acumen. No, I didn't vote for him.
          • Well, it also made use of the fact he wasn't Cruz Bustamante. I voted for Aanold, but it was primarily a vote against Bustamante.

            CA's got enough problems without a card-carrying Meccha member for governor. I wouldn't want Cruz in any more than I'd want some KKK turkey.
        • In Conan (the barbarian), the character was well educated before being freed, and I believe went on to be a king with a long rule.

          So maybe only being as smart as Conan isn't so bad.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by hawk ( 1151 )
        Electing him is not the scary part.

        The scary part is that tossing out the governor to put him in was *rational*.

        hawk, shuddering years later

    • Re:Good (Score:5, Insightful)

      by ThosLives ( 686517 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @11:04AM (#20507943) Journal

      It's interesting that a quote from an article [escapistmagazine.com] about the law itself from its supporter Leyland Yee says "They fought efforts to publicize their rating system because they thought it would impact sales, and now they're again putting their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children."

      The thing that gets me is he (and probably others) think that not having warning labels somehow infringes on the rights of individuals, in this case parents, to make an informed decision about purchases. Personally, I don't see how having a label or not having a label has anything to do with rights. Warning labels may fall into the realm of product liability, but I don't think that really applies to any form of intellectual property. The concept that certain ideas can be harmful is a very dangerous one; my opinion is that the only times certain ideas are harmful is if they are implemented, not if they are discussed or considered.

      In this particular instance - video games - the parent always has the right to watch the games their child plays, as well as the right to take that game away from the child (well, I'm sure some people would argue against that right, but I think that's a valid parental responsibility - and therefore they have to have the right to do it. If you take away that parental 'right', then parents must also be indemnified for the actions of their children (because they don't have the right to 'interfere' in their child's life), and I don't see many courts wanting to tackle that issue. In fact, I don't think I want to live in a society that would do such a thing.)

      • Re:Good (Score:5, Funny)

        by Aaron Denney ( 123626 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @11:12AM (#20508049) Homepage

        The concept that certain ideas can be harmful is a very dangerous one;
        Such delicious irony
      • You almost strike to the heart of the real issue here: there is a large segment of parents who no longer want to parent. They want the government to do it for them. They want laws passed so they don't have to make decisions and teach their children. The answer is to repeal all those laws and make them parent. If they don't want to research the computer games their kids are playing, then don't let them have computers. Maybe the little bastards will learn how to read then.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by cliffski ( 65094 )
          does everyone have time to do that? do YOU do that? have you read the magazines they read? watched the TV shows? listened to the radio programs? have you read the list of ingredients on the food they eat?
          Most people think its good that food has how much fat and sugar it contains written on the packet. If so, what's wrong with a game having how much violence and sex is in the game on the box?
          Bioshock has an 18 certificate printed on the box cover. I'm fine with that. What's the problem? cigarettes in the Uk
          • Food and cigarettes are apolitical. Artistic expression is not.

            If you rate or censor any sort of media, you are protenially restricting the political expression of some people.
      • So do you agree that it would be perfectly fine to give the Bible an NC17 rating for the sex and extreme violence involved... so parents can make a reasonable decision. You agree, that people who wanted to rate the Bible NC17 would be totally concerned about the children, and not have an anti-Christian agenda in any way?

      • Mandated industry ratings boards are, at best, marketing tools, and worse, a mechanism for making an end run around the Constitution. Note here that the 'mandate' can come from the government, or as a result of threatened government action (as was the case with the ESRB, the MPAA, and, to a certain extent, the CCA)

        The exmple of the MPAA rating system is the most instructive. The groups that applied the pressures which indirectly caused the creation of the MPAA ratings system were not interested in inform

    • Maybe if they are able to recover more money, that the California taxpayers will eventually have to pay, the California voters will get pissed off and vote out the clowns that passed legislation they should have known would be doomed.

      Dream on; for every nerd that thinks this was a waste of money there are 100 parents and grandparents who don't care about the constitution when you should be thinking of the children.

      Were they hoping that every game publisher in the country would just let their law slide and not bother to challenge it, even though those same publishers had already successfully challenged similar laws?

      Yes. From their perspective the government is in the right and the game companies are EVIL, and when you are fighting EVIL you do whatever it takes, including passing laws you know will fall.

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by amuro98 ( 461673 )
        My biggest problem here is that the Governator already tried to pass this law, only to get slapped down by the courts. Instead of trying to address their concerns, he just turned around and submitted the same stupid bill with its same blatant unconstitutional writings.

        This wasn't "...but think of the children!" this was clearly something the Governator did to try to soothe his hurt pride, which resulted in nothing more than a big waste of EVERYONE's time and money. I only hope that the court forces Arnold

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by HTH NE1 ( 675604 )

          I only hope that the court forces Arnold to personally pay the fees - as opposed to passing the cost onto the people of CA
          At least for any additional fees incurred from his personally appealing the ruling he should personally be on the hook for.
    • Right. Just like the thoroughly corrupt Governor Rod Blagojevich and his cronies suffered for their efforts to save the children. The fact is, most people will never hear about their tax dollars being wasted and the government officials can claim that they tried to do the right thing.
    • Maybe if they are able to recover more money, that the California taxpayers will eventually have to pay, the California voters will get pissed off and vote out the clowns that passed legislation they should have known would be doomed.

      Sorry, cause and effect are too distant. You're talking about (on the order of) $300K out of a $1.5 trillion (with a T) [wikipedia.org] GDP, and an annual total revenue of $50 billion (with a B) [hwcli.com].

      If you earn $100,000 a year, it would be equivalent to you losing a penny in the couch.
  • I'm frustrated, and partly embarrassed, every time a politician goes on a witch hunt just to garner votes, mostly because our country needs people in office who think of their title as more than just a popularity contest. While its unfortunate Californians are the ones that have to foot the bill for Arnold's political stunt, more and more people will realize the true cost of politicians who pass legislation just for the positive boost it gives their image, and be wiser than to vote for candidates campaignin

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by faloi ( 738831 )
      Arnold's political stunt? Don't forget the state Senator championing the bill. Everybody has to get held accountable, not just the ones you especially don't like.
      • Very true but Arnie's actions have a certain hipocracy about them considering his portrayal of violent characters in movies and the use of his likeness in the inevitable video game tie-in (has the state Senator ever played a violent killing machine from the future too?).

        A shame really because his movies are good fun and I hate to think of him as selling out.

  • Such a waste (Score:3, Informative)

    by paladinwannabe2 ( 889776 ) on Friday September 07, 2007 @11:09AM (#20508019)
    "Governor Rod Blagojevich spent nearly $1 million in a failed defense of an unconstitutional videogame law, which ultimately resulted in cash being drawn from public health and state welfare programs in order to cover the cost."

    It's bad enough that they are passing these stupid laws in the first place, but wasting that much taxpayer money to defend them after the fact is just sad. Won't someone think of the poor and sick children?
    • What's worse is that we have to pay to defend ourselves from our own elected government to keep the very rights they want to take away. A conspiracy theorist might suggest that these laws are being lobbied for by the lawyers who want to see them fought and overturned. You could make the case that they want the moral precedent set in our favor, but when it takes exorbitant fees to pay for such a maneuver it's grossly mismatched against the benefit to the state.

      The best bet for taxpayers is to not elect the

Slashdot Top Deals

Math is like love -- a simple idea but it can get complicated. -- R. Drabek

Close