More CA Games Bill Reactions

GamePolitics is reporting on more reactions to the injunction of the CA games bill. From the article: "This is just the first step in what is certain to be a lengthy legal proceeding. Once the state is able to present evidence in the case, the courts will have the opportunity to understand why the governor and Legislature believe the state has a compelling interest in protecting children from potential harm from exposure to extremely violent video games." The injunction just happened yesterday, so there are still a lot of fresh emotions here. More details on the stoppage at the BBC.

Anti-violent games, ey?

[mister_llah]

Here's a thought, instead of blaming the companies that make legitemate software, maybe we should blame the vendors who sell it inappropriately, or even... I don't know... the PARENTS?

This is like banning cars because people get into accidents, or banning sitting because people fall out of their chairs. ... and this, my friends, is why I am an occasional misanthrope.

Re:Anti-violent games, ey?

[Anonymous Coward]

well, we already ban guns because of violent crime, not criminals. We blame McDonalds and Marlboro for obesity and lung cancer. Developers of file sharing applications are being arrested and/or sued for piracy. Why should game software be treated any differently?

*barf*!

Bans!

[mister_llah]

We ban guns that aren't reasonable to be used for sport. Chances are you won't go deer hunting with an AK-47... we ban them because their use is almost implied in their title... *assault* rifles...

Stupid people blame McDonalds for obesity... but they eat there so often, whose fault is it? If you ate burgers all the time at home, you'd get just as fat there.

Marlboro, hell, there is a warning on the box that could only be more obvious if they said "If you smoke this, you will die"... ...

The fact people smoke

Okay so how does this relate...

[mister_llah]

As relating to bans and sue happy Americans...

Video games are entertainment, they're not real, there is no clear link between the games and violence enacted in the really real world...

Children should not be purchasing these games, like children should not be purchasing cigarettes... vendors who sell games illegally... should pay fines similar to vendors who sell cigarettes illegally. This makes sense. ... and games aren't even a threat to our lives... like obesity, cancer, or criminal violence using assault

Re:Bans!

[Chmcginn]

We ban guns that aren't reasonable to be used for sport.

They're not really banned, there's just a lot of limits & regulations on them. But more importantly... since when does sport enter into the 2nd amendment?

Oblig. Simpsons

[truthsearch]

Edna: Seymour, you have to think of the children's future.
Seymour: Oh, Edna. We all know that these children HAVE no future.
[Everyone stops and stares at Seymour.]
Seymour: Prove me wrong children. Prove me wrong.

Question

[voice_of_all_reason]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech So, this is California trying to pass a law restricting freedom of speech. A state. Why is it now allowed under the first amendment?

You didn't get the memo

[Crash Culligan]

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech

So, this is California trying to pass a law restricting freedom of speech. A state. Why is it now allowed under the first amendment?

You have to understand, they've become so weak in recent years that they and many other terms co-opted as buzzwords have to be enclosed in quotation marks to convey the disdain that many hold for them. Here, try these examples:

Re:Question

[metternich]

A number of reasons:

Article IV Section 4:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.

This has been interepted is requiring the states to honor certain provisions of the Bill of Rights.

Amendment 14 Section 1:
No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its

Re:Question

[voice_of_all_reason]

Ah, so it is in the document. I always thought it was just "assumed" to apply to states as well and no one wanted to be an ass by claiming they could eliminate freedom of speech to their 50th of the US.

So idiotic...

[databank]

Here's a thought:

When are people going to stop focusing on kids playing violent video games and start focusing on kids that are "violent"?

Re:So idiotic...

[tulak_horde]

Here's a thought: When are people going to stop focusing on kids playing violent video games and start focusing on kids that are "violent"?

Or more to the point. Why not encourage them to be violent since the government will be sending them to Iraq, Afghanistan, Iran, Syria, North Korea anyway. If games make them more violent, the government should be all for it. Afterall, are you going to send somebody who's had a steady diet of the Sims and Dance Revolution to go find Zarqawi in Fallujah?

Re:So idiotic...

[geminidomino]

Afterall, are you going to send somebody who's had a steady diet of the Sims ... to go find Zarqawi in Fallujah?

It would take a hell of a long time...

"No really, the pool is safe. Honest. Come on in."
*enemy enters pool. GI Sim leaves pool and takes ladder with him!*
"Ha Ha, you fool! You are doomed! Drown!"

A choice quote

[deblau]

From the case in Illinois, which gave a permanent injunction against enforcing the Illinois Violent Video Games Law and the Sexually Explicit Video Games Law:

The priceless heritage of American society is the unrestricted constitutional right of each member to think as he will. Thought control is a copyright of totalitarianism, and Americans have no claim to it. It is not the function of the government to keep the citizen from falling into error; it is the function of the citizen to keep the government from falling into error. These concerns apply to minors just as they apply to adults. If controlling access to allegedly "dangerous" speech is important in promoting the positive psychological development of children, in American society that role is properly accorded to parents and families, not the state.

Amen, Brother. I hope all you Illinois residents out there send a big thank you to

JUDGE MATTHEW F. KENNELLY
United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, Eastern Division
Everett McKinley Dirksen Building
219 South Dearborn Street
Chicago, Illinois 60604

The name of the case is Entertainment Software Association v. Blagojevich. The judge was quoting Supreme Court Justice Robert H. Jackson, from his opinion in a 1950 case.

Where does it end?

[billn]

So the connection is being drawn, that exposure to violent concepts and scenes triggers violent tendencies. Will this bill extend to prohibiting the display of violence in the news? Violence in movie previews? Violence in commercials?

Taken in scale, the real question come to the fore.. When do we get our daily doses of Prozium?

The problem with violence is that it's a psychoreactive stimulus. In the case of media, we're talking about engaging characters in fight-or-flight inducing situations, without the ris

You should interfer with the parents choice

[mikek3332002]

I agree banning the sale of violent games to minors, however they should be allowed to play them if there parents let them.