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This discussion has been archived.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:
  • Nice! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by ZorinLynx ( 31751 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @09:09PM (#39119023) Homepage

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

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

  • Re:Nice! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Dyinobal ( 1427207 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @09:18PM (#39119119)
    Why you think the politicians are paying this out of their own pockets? This is from the tax payers pockets.
  • Re:Pointless (Score:5, Insightful)

    by nedlohs ( 1335013 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @09:23PM (#39119171)

    There's pretty big overlap between those tax payers and the people who can vote in state elections. So that seems reasonably fair in the end.

  • by perpenso ( 1613749 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @09:30PM (#39119271)

    Good. Maybe this will teach future political leaders that censorship is a bad idea. Oh who am I kidding, these idiots never learn anything.

    That is not quite true. You have a very different perspective than the politicians. The politicians have already banked the votes of frightened parents. Wasting money and time and going counter to the constitution are irrelevant to them. All they care about are the votes and the likely voters are the silly frightened parents and not the gamers.

    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.

  • by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @10:20PM (#39119741)
    Fear of cursing is childish in itself. His cursing wasn't out of place or overzealous as cursing sometimes is. It made his statement a shit load more effective, I thought.
  • Re:Nice! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @10:41PM (#39119941)

    And you can't put most of the blame on him. The governor is not a dictator, he needed a bill from the legislature first before he could sign it. He wasn't popular enough among the legislators of either part to push through something through force of will.

  • by cgenman ( 325138 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @11:12PM (#39120213) Homepage

    Both of those that you list kids could see with parental permission. But more importantly than that, the rating system in Hollywood and the Video Game industries is voluntary. There is no law against kids seeing an R rated film, just a theater owner's agreement. A big part of that is if the rating were given the force of law, it would need to hold up to scrutiny. As it stands, there are a lot of societal standards and other things which don't necessarily hold up to government oversight, and the ratings process is entirely opaque for fear of influence scandals.

    So yes, reward retailers who adhere to the ratings standards, be it movies or games. But there are major, obvious constitutionality challenges in giving a voluntary system the force of law.

  • Re:Nice! (Score:5, Insightful)

    by sg_oneill ( 159032 ) on Tuesday February 21, 2012 @11:40PM (#39120445)

    Except in the case of politicians who actually embezel cash for themselves, I dont think billing politicians for bad decisions is a good idea, because it means that only the super rich could afford to be politicians. That means that only your bushes and cheyneys of the world who a couple of million dollars bill wont send them broke, could do it. But your Ron pauls, obamas , and sarah palins could not, because these guys are just upper-middle class folks who would be bankerupted by it. And it means they could not have run.

    Do we really want to guarantee a future run by the filthy rich, folks who for the most part got rich by corruption and gouging others for cash?

  • Re:Nice! (Score:4, Insightful)

    by Dunbal ( 464142 ) * on Wednesday February 22, 2012 @12:38AM (#39120915)

    When politicians make good moves

    [citation needed]

"Even if you're on the right track, you'll get run over if you just sit there." -- Will Rogers