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


Forgot your password?
The Almighty Buck The Courts Games

Unconstitutional Video Game Law Costs California $2 Million 180

An anonymous reader writes "In hopes of protecting the children of California from the ravages of violent video games, then governor Arnold Schwarzenegger attempted to push through a law that would fine retailers $1000 for each infraction of selling a violent game to an underage child. However, in the wake of appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down the law, California is now forced to pay the legal fees of all parties to the tune of two million dollars."
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Unconstitutional Video Game Law Costs California $2 Million

Comments Filter:
  • Re:Nice! (Score:5, Informative)

    by popeye44 ( 929152 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @10:06PM (#39119615)

    Well, As I am one of those Caltrans employees.. I can tell you where the money goes that we take in in Gas Taxes, Construction taxes, etc etc. It goes in the General fund. Not transportation accounts. "except for certain taxes which do" So Lets say we have a good year.. and our transportation fund is swollen. The State comes over with its hand out and takes from that fund to put into the general fund. As you can imagine this practice has a way of making roads very hard to maintain. On top of that we have say 40 people to take care of around 1200 miles of road. Between staffing issues, cuts, promotions, vacations, sick days etc. There are typically 26-32 of those people at work. On a good day those folk actually get to do some maintenance on the road. On most days.. they respond to accidents and complaints from the public. So this is a snippet from my point of view. I do live in a fairly populated area.. but NOTHING like LA. SF etc. You can extrapolate that there are more people in those areas.. but by and large CT is an engineering organization and it's more fun to build than maintain.. So that is pretty much how we operate. build more ignore the old.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @10:34PM (#39119881)

    Al Gore was evidently in on it since he was present and asking questions at the congressional hearing with Dee Snider. (You can see parts of it in the movie "A Headbangers Journey").

  • Re:Nice! (Score:4, Informative)

    by LordKronos ( 470910 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @11:34PM (#39120393)

    Good. Maybe this will teach future political leaders that censorship is a bad idea.

    Oh who am I kidding, these idiots never learn anything.

    Of course they won't learn. They didn't learn from last time. There was no surprise about what the outcome would be. This had already been pretty well tested. Illinois had passed the same sort of law, and it was struck down in the Court of Appeals (http://www.gamecensorship.com/Illinois.htm). The state ended up paying one-half million dollars in legal fees. Yet already knowing the result of that case (I'm sure the politicians did their due diligence and researched the matter before making law, right?), California passed their law, then did their usual by taking it a step further....to the supreme court, and for two million dollars.

    It's like saying "if I smack my head into the wall even harder, maybe it won't hurt this time".

  • by perpenso ( 1613749 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @01:08AM (#39121067)

    It is amazing to watch the very same people who in their youth were outraged when Al Gore led his crusade against music become the middle aged people who support a crusade against video games.

    That wasn't Al Gore. That was Tipper Gore, his wife.

    A Senator's wife does not call for Senate Hearings. Senator Al did that and testified in support as well.

    Also, the PMRC advocated voluntary use of warning labels, rather than outright censorship.

    That was a fall back position. They originally wanted to bar the sale of the "most offensive" music to minors. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the recording industry introduced an industry based rating system and warning labels and undercut the PRMC's efforts.

  • by rahvin112 ( 446269 ) on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @01:11AM (#39121085)

    Incorrect. Some states have successfully made it illegal for anyone under the MPAA or ESRB rating to see the movie or purchase the game without parental permission. The California law was thrown out for how it was implemented, the legality of enforcing the MPAA and ESRB ratings has already been established by the courts, it simply requires certain steps and procedures the Cali law failed to follow.

"Never face facts; if you do, you'll never get up in the morning." -- Marlo Thomas