Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Games Government Entertainment Politics

CA Game Bill Struck Down, Governor Vows Appeal 106

Posted by Zonk from the like-a-bad-tennis-match dept.
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.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

CA Game Bill Struck Down, Governor Vows Appeal More

CA Game Bill Struck Down, Governor Vows Appeal

Comments Filter:

  • Irony (Score:5, Interesting)

    by KoldKompress ( 1034414 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2007 @01:39PM (#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."

      • Re: (Score:1)

        by iocat ( 572367 )
        Arnold is no longer my friend. What state has the largest portion of the game industry pie? He should be sucking up to the game industry, like CA sucks up to movie industry, not slagging it off.
    • 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 @01:54PM (#20144549)
      If you'd played the games [youtube.com] based on his movies, you'd understand his anger.
      • If you've seen movies [imdb.com] based [imdb.com] on games [imdb.com], you understand my anger!
      • CA Congress to Governor: We hold these truths to be self-evident. ...

        Governor to CA Congress: (puts on sunglasses) I'll be back.
        • The CA Congress didn't stop the law. The CA congress *PASSED* the law. The courts found the law unconstitutional.
          • Pfft, goddamn constitution. Just those liberal activist judges again, protecting your rights. WTF?! Soon they'll be telling California they have to stop their police from breaking up lawful gatherings! Guns will be legal again*! Cats and dogs, together at peace! What are we coming to!?!?

            *Legal being a relative term to how they are currently "legal", overall, though that is a stretch of the word...

    • 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 @02:19PM (#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 @03:01PM (#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...

      • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

        by sesshomaru ( 173381 )
        That's stupid. The movies are sold in the exact same stores as video games, by the exact same people. In a department store, they are usually sold in the same section of the store as the videogames. The usually come in the same sized packaging and on a similar type of disk media. If anything, the most common format, DVDs, will play in more players than videogames.

        • That's stupid. The movies are sold in the exact same stores as video games, by the exact same people. In a department store, they are usually sold in the same section of the store as the videogames. The usually come in the same sized packaging and on a similar type of disk media. If anything, the most common format, DVDs, will play in more players than videogames.
          How is that flamebait?
      • He has been in some incredibly violent movies, but minors are not allowed to buy those movies.

        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.
        • The stores and theaters, by and large, do enforce the movie industry rules that prohibit kids from getting into R rated movies.

          Stores that sell video games do not.
      • 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.
        • As I've said repeatedly, it *is* voluntarily enforced - but it is enforced. Most people don't even know that it's not enforced by statute.

          This cannot be said for video game sales.
    • 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."

    • Politicians are whores. (Score:1, Interesting)

      by Anonymous Coward
      Earler varieties have tried to ban, as immoral, Waltzing, Louie Louie by I believe the Kingsmen, Comic books, books (several), stand up comedy, a Birth of a Nation, movies like The Moon is Blue. I recently saw La Beste, that was .... interesting, and much banned.

      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.
    • Oh c'mon, that's a no-brainer: Who'd want to watch violent movies when he can play the lead role himself?

    • 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.

    • 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.
    • Remember that slashdot article a couple days ago where it was found that monkeys learn like humans? Well, neither do I. That's because neither of us did the research or wrote the article. We just read it (or more likely, the slashdot responses). The gist of the article was that humans learn best by _doing_ instead of passively watching (even though the "passive watching" functions in our brains as a virtual "us" "doing" the thing, thus is slightly better than just reading).
      So, it can be argued that act
      • Exactly right, my good man. I grew up on Super Mario Brothers, and now I eat mushrooms and save princesses all the time.
    • 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.

      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)

      by The_K4 ( 627653 )
      No this does not seem hypocritical. While I think this law in unnecessary, we do have movie ratings and for some ratings you need ID or a parent to get in. So, in your example, Manhunt is an AO game or an R movie, you would need to be 18 for either. Now some theaters may choose to ignore this ID requirement, but there are some that would check ID and not sell a ticket to an R rated movie to a 15 year old. How is this any different? Arnold made incredibly violent movies for adults knowing that kids shou
    • "R" and "AO" are the same thing

      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.
    • No more hypocritical than his stance on anabolic steroids or his firm convictions on environmental reform (did I forget to mention this boy owns 6 humvees?).

      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.
    • >What passes as an R for a movie, would be an AO for a game, like Manhunt.

      Youre looking at the wrong "R." The "R" after his name explains his politics.

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by zussal ( 1058116 )
      Violent video games help train us to fight terrorism... come on Arnold, you are going to stop all the kids' brainwashing by appealing. Dumbass. Slashdot sucks, kiss my ass everyone. Troll 4 life motherfuckers!
    • No, the Governator isn't being hypocritical. He is smart enough to recognize that many films he has been in are not suitable for certain age ranges. And you don't sound as if you'd disagree with this either. And yes, he knows he'd lose a couple of bucks if the wee kiddies couldn't be taken to his flicks. Logically, therefore, he is more interested in protecting our children than in making a buck. I wish more of our politicians felt this way. "I believe that people of earlier generations do not understand ga
  • 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 @01:57PM (#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 @01:59PM (#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 @03:41PM (#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.

    • Watching John with the machine, it was suddenly so clear. The Government would never stop, it would never leave him. And it would never hurt him, never shout at him or get drunk and hit him or say it was too busy to spend time with him. It would always be there and it would die to protect him. Of all the would-be fathers who came and went over the years, this thing, this machine was the only one who measured up. In an insane world, it was the sanest choice.

      Not that I agree, of course...

  • Before anyone asks why it is unconstitutional... (Score:5, Insightful)

    by bigbigbison ( 104532 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2007 @01:46PM (#20144423) Homepage
    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.

        • 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.

          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

    • What about porn, though? Isn't the sale of pornography to minors regulated by some states? I'm not asking this as a point, I really just don't know how all this works.
      • 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
        • Yeah, but that's the point. Let me draw the analogy if I can. Pornographic movies are a subset of a larger movie industry. The government, at least on a state level, has for years regulated the sale of pornographic movies to minors even though it doesn't do it on a industry wide basis. AO rated games are a subset of a larger game industry. So why is it unconstitutional for state governments to regulate the sell of AO rated games to minors when regulating only AO rated games would not be an industry wid
          • I understand your point, but up until the ESRB broke under the political pressure and inappropriately started rating mainstream games AO for content that would not recieve and X/NC-17 in a film, this wasn't a problem. AO games were previously sold in venues appropriate for X rated material, such as X rated video shops and the Internet, not at Wal-Mart.

            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

          • That goes back to my original point that it would take a mountain of evidence for videogame ratings such as and including AO -- for violence -- to be government regulated. Until such a mountain exists then there will be no basis for treating violent videogames differently than violent films or even non-violent films.

            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.
        • Yes but porn is a genre and not a medium

          And realistically violent videogames are a genre, not a medium.

    • The only bad thing about these laws is that they typically go against the constitution. The biggest problem is that there is no MPAA equivalent in the gaming industry. There isn't a need for the government to regulate the movie industry.

      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

      • there is no MPAA equivalent in the gaming industry

        Thank God for that. I don't want every video game to use Steam. I want to play w/o the internet thank you.

    • 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

    • Porn? (Score:2)

      by phorm ( 591458 )
      I could be wrong, but I think that in terms of both picture and print, there are government laws controlling the sale and public display of pornography? Not that it makes the game-violence bill any different, and it still makes games the only legislation-enforced anti-violence medium.

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

    by RogueyWon ( 735973 ) * on Tuesday August 07, 2007 @01:46PM (#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.

        • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

          by MightyMartian ( 840721 )
          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.
        • Because it works the same for both sides.

          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

          • In theory, this is correct. What it doesn't account for, though, is legislatures so utterly stupid that they sign into being laws which are identical to those which have already been established to be unconstitutional when implemented by other states. As I understand it, the drafting of the various bills that have been struck down is very similar. They're not trying anything clever to get around the constitutional objections that have been raised to the exact same law in the past. They're just doing the leg

          • Re: (Score:2)

            by nasch ( 598556 )

            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 signed it into law?
            Yep. That has nothing to do with any particular law though. ;-)

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by adarn ( 582480 )
          Because the other party doesn't want the general public to start judging them by the same criteria?

  • Personally I expected better... (Score:1, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward
    from Governor Conan. He didn't crush his enimies, see them driven before him OR hear the lamnentations of the women. *sigh*

  • Law struck down on the basis of stupidity? (Score:4, Funny)

    by bigtangringo ( 800328 ) on Tuesday August 07, 2007 @02:08PM (#20144763) Homepage
    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 @02:29PM (#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.
  • You know ArnHold is sitting in his office, playing Orphan Feast as we speak! http://www.adultswim.com/games/orphanfeast/index.h tml [adultswim.com]

Slashdot Top Deals

THEGODDESSOFTHENETHASTWISTINGFINGERSANDHERVOICEISLIKEAJAVELININTHENIGHTDUDE

Close