CA Game Bill Struck Down, Governor Vows Appeal 106
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.
Re: (Score:3)
An insult to whores everywhere (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:1)
with both politicians and whores,
once you've had them, you never want them back!
Irony (Score:5, Interesting)
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)
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."
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Irony (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Governor to CA Congress: (puts on sunglasses) I'll be back.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
*Legal being a relative term to how they are currently "legal", overall, though that is a stretch of the word...
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I don't see any reason why minors should be allowed to buy incredibly violent video games.
Re:Irony (Score:5, Informative)
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*
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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)
Care to back that up?
Re: (Score:2, Interesting)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
You are full of it. (Score:2)
Both mediums get ratings, and the retailers are on the honor system to enforce them.
Maybe the problem is the stores selling the games...
Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? No there's not. Stores may have policies regarding it, but its not enforced by any laws.
I don't see any reason why minors should be allowed to buy incredibly violent video games.
Hmm, you seem to forget that 15 and up are considered minors as well. Perhaps parents should be in charge, instead of you drawing an arbitrary line.
Re: (Score:1)
Stores that sell video games do not.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
This cannot be said for video game sales.
Re: (Score:2)
Actually it's perfectly logical (Score:2)
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."
Politicians are whores. (Score:1, Interesting)
But can you blame them old people think all kinds of stupid things, such as Graham Crackers will help prevent young boys from masturbating. In not too long, I will be old, and will beging thinking stupid things. It is the way of the world.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Agreed, but I would think that the the R would be more like M cause you can watch them at 18 without an adult but AO would be more like X [wikipedia.org] or rather NC-17 [mpaa.org] because they mostly gain the rating for the explicit sexual content.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
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:1)
So, it can be argued that act
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
There is an argument -- one that I am not sure how I feel about, but an argument nonetheless -- that says the participation and interactivity of gaming makes everything sort of... more. It's frequently looked at in studies and frequently used as the cornerstone of debate. Sometimes they compare to TV, sometimes they compare to competitive athletics... it's a pretty hotly rese
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
they both restrict people who are 17 years and younger
"R" means "Restricted" - meaning restricted unless you are an adult. there's no difference there.
the hypocrisy is that movie theaters or retail stores have no problem showing/selling an R-rated movie while no retail outlets will carry an AO-rated game.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Youre looking at the wrong "R." The "R" after his name explains his politics.
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
Good for them (Score:2)
Re:Good for them (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Good for them (Score:4, Insightful)
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...
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Good for them (Score:4, Informative)
When it comes to media censorship, the Democrats have not had a stellar track record.
Re: (Score:2)
Not that I agree, of course...
Before anyone asks why it is unconstitutional... (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Not the Comic Book industry? (Score:2)
Re:Before anyone asks why it is unconstitutional.. (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
You think that an unrated game is going to make it onto Steam, XBox Live, or Gametap?
Hell, all of the classic games being released on the Wii virtual console are being submitted for ESRB ratings.
About the only way to distribute a game if it's not rated is to post it on your own website.
--Jeremy
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
I"m not a lawyer though so if someone who is an expert in this wo
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
This is why it was such a huge failure of the ESRB when the ESRB rerated San Andreas as AO. Suddenly, mainstream stores found themselves carrying an AO ti
Re: (Score:2)
If a game is rating AO for sex, then I would assume that existing local or state pornography laws would already apply so no need for a new law.
Re: (Score:1)
And realistically violent videogames are a genre, not a medium.
Re: (Score:1)
If the ESRB had the same power there wouldn't be any need for the government to regulate the video game industry. The problem is how can you do this effectively, especially now that online digital distribution of games is becoming so popular. The next generation of consoles
Re: (Score:1)
Thank God for that. I don't want every video game to use Steam. I want to play w/o the internet thank you.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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)
Porn? (Score:2)
Go for the wallet (Score:3, Interesting)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
I mean, the way I judge the US population, they start throwing fits when they hear their politicians do something against the constitution.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
Unless they're setting up a test case (and this only works if one party has a super-majority), just about no one introduces bills that are intentionally unconstitutional. It's entirely possible to send a bill to the Governor that is supported by both sides of the aisle that is later determined to be unconstitutional. So who's the bad guy? The legislator that introduced the bill? The one that carried the bill to the other house? The ones who voted for it? The one who
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:2)
Personally I expected better... (Score:1, Funny)
Law struck down on the basis of stupidity? (Score:4, Funny)
It's just like with porn (Score:3, Informative)
LIES, its's all LIES! (Score:1)