Catch up on stories from the past week (and beyond) at the Slashdot story archive


Forgot your password?
Censorship Entertainment Games Your Rights Online

Calif. Petitions Supreme Court On Violent Video Game Bill 204

eldavojohn writes "You know the drill, violent video game bill struck down because: "We hold that the Act, as presumptively invalid content-based restriction on speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and not the 'variable obscenity' standard from Ginsberg v. New York. Applying strict scrutiny, we hold that the Act violates rights protected by the First Amendment." Well, that didn't satisfy a PhD child psychologist turned Democratic California State Senator named Leland Yee who states in his press release that "California's violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court — which has never heard a case dealing with violent video games — will accept our appeal and assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children. I believe the high court will uphold this law as Constitutional. In fact in Roper v. Simmons, the court agreed we need to treat children differently in the eyes of the law due to brain development." His appeal (in PDF) is here and you can find some industry reactions to the Supreme Court hearing at GamePolitics. Unfortunately Yee seems to be a bit more competent than old Jack Thompson, who is pushing a bill in Louisiana today."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Calif. Petitions Supreme Court On Violent Video Game Bill

Comments Filter:
  • WTF? (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Locke2005 ( 849178 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @05:48PM (#28031953)
    ...assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children. How about a bill to assist parents in keeping that harmful McDonald's food out of the hands of children? Childhood obesity does a lot more damage than video games! After that, can we work on a bill to keep television remotes out of the hands of wives and girlfriends? I'm pretty sure that is the number one cause of domestic violence!
  • by random coward ( 527722 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @05:49PM (#28031971)
    Where are they going to find the money to bring this to the supreme court?

    Wouldn't it be better to actually spend the money on the children in California, rather than pay lawyers to take this clearly unconstitutional law to the supreme court? What with California's budget woes; you would think they would want to save the money so they don't have to cut as much from education and health care for poor children.
  • I remember this guy (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Red Flayer ( 890720 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @05:56PM (#28032067) Journal
    Ah, Leland Yee.

    This is the same Leland Yee who has three times been pulled over on suspicion of cruising for prostitutes in San Fran (while holding public office), but never been charged? The same Leland Yee who was arrested for shoplifting in Hawaii, but had all charges dropped without prejudice?

    Is it just me, or are those with the biggest axe to grind usually the ones with the most delicious skeletons in the closet?
  • Re:long of saying.. (Score:3, Interesting)

    by interkin3tic ( 1469267 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @05:58PM (#28032115)

    Why not just pass a law against kids being idiots? Solve a lot more problems that way, and has about the same chances of doing anything as these censorship measures do.

  • by spiffyman ( 949476 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @06:24PM (#28032485) Homepage

    Speaking of axes to grind, until you can produce evidence, the answer to all your questions may as well be "no." Seriously, how is this modded Informative or Insightful? There's not a single link to evidence for these claims. In a quick Google search, I found nothing about Yee being picked up for being a john - though lots to suggest he has fought against prostitution for years - and the only thing about shoplifting was this article [] referencing a 1992 incident that appears to have been a big, dumb mistake.

    Mods, honestly, why did you mod this up? Do you know something I don't?

  • by pcolaman ( 1208838 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @06:38PM (#28032713)
    Haven't you heard? If California fixes their budget woes, they risk losing the bailout money they got from the Federal Government. That would be a catastrophe!
  • by phanboy_iv ( 1006659 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @06:51PM (#28032865)
    This is something I never understood. If you say, and truthfully so, that violent video games don't make killers, therefore banning them is pointless, the logical principal behind that tends to negate the argument that guns should be treated in that same manner.

    And not to be pendantic, but it is rather obvious that even the outright banning of guns would not stop people or children from murdering others, and it is my personal convition that it wouldn't even make much of a statistical dent.
  • unlikely (Score:3, Interesting)

    by HBergeron ( 71031 ) on Wednesday May 20, 2009 @06:58PM (#28032975)

    A capital punishment decision that was only 5-4 is going to be extended so far as to justify prior restraint on free expression. In fact - yes, this is a legal argument but it just barely passes the laugh test.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 21, 2009 @01:35AM (#28036149)

    There's not a single link to evidence for these claims.

    Really? Try reading the article you linked to. It mentions the suspicion of prostitution stops. You found it, then didn't bother reading it.

    referencing a 1992 incident that appears to have been a big, dumb mistake.

    Where in the article does it say it was a big dumb mistake? In act, he refuses to explain it. When questioned he instead starts calling his opponent an ass. Here are the facts. He was charged with shoplifting in Hawaii. While awaiting a hearing he left without properly notifying authorities (fled jurisdiction to avoid prosecution) and never returned to face the music. Not sure about Hawaii, but where I'm from, it's quite possible to do jail time for shop lifting, even if only a few months, so I don't want to hear that it's not being a big deal. He's a government official. He should be held to a higher standard, and he obviously has failed to met that standard by this incident alone.

There's no future in time travel.