Calif Taking Another Bite at the Anti-Violent Games Apple

[DoctorFinger]

California state senator Leland Yee is once again trying to revive a controversial state law which would require game publishers to include special labeling on games deemed excessively violent. Under the proposed statute, retailers who sell the specially marked games to minors would face a stiff fine and could potentially be sentenced to jail time.

If this all sounds familiar, it should. Sen. Yee has been pushing this law since at least 2005, and it's been struck down by the courts every time. At issue: the Appellate courts have ruled that the link between children playing violent games and children comitting violent acts is too tenuous a thread to hang any sort of First Amendment restrictions on. If the law were to go into effect, retailers would effectively have to start treating violent games the same way they handle pornography.

Source - Gamasutra (http://www.gamasutra.com/php-bin/news_index.php?story=20816).

[shunoshi]

Although I do agree that adult games should not be in the hands of minors, this is a bit extreme. I understand getting fined/jail time for selling alcohol or tobacco to a minor. Both these substances have the power to kill and should not be taken lightly. Violent games being handled on the same level doesn't make sense. Are they planning on putting black covers on them and storing them in the taboo "back room"? I don't understand why violent games can't be treated like violent movies. All in all, parents should be the ones deciding what their kids have access to.......we'll save that another thread though.

Oh well, me arguing this point is like preaching to the choir and beating a dead horse simultaneously....

[Schnoogs]

The Nanny State for the win.

Adam Corolla said it best...Californians pride themselves on being so progressive and free spirited...yet as state it's one of the most strictly regulated with practically everything being against the law.

[National Kato]

Parents need to do their job. How hard is it to read up a bit about a game prior to buying it for your child? Wouldn't you do that before dropping them off to see a movie? Stop blaming people for making stuff not intended for your children.

Start being a parent involved in your child's interests and activities.

[DoctorFinger]

My biggest problem is the disconnect between games and all other mediums. If Yee is so worried about violence, why not include movies, books, music, etc? Because he knows that if he tried to have violent movies classified as porn the people would be up in arms and calling him a fascist.

But he - and I'd say a majority of people over 50 - still think games are supposed to be for the elementary school crowd. As I once said: to them it's like selling Playboy at the Disney store.

[Schnoogs]

Parents need to do their job..

Personality responsibility and liberal politics are mutually exclusive...sad but true. :(

[Kelegacy]

This Yee guy wastes so many taxpayer dollars and wasting the system's time with his failed and frivolous legislature I'm curious as to why the guy still is in office. He needs to lose his seat when it comes election time.

[National Kato]

Personality responsibility and liberal politics are mutually exclusive...sad but true. :(

Well, I don't see many conservatives fighting 'the good fight' either. Typically, instead of asking for laws preventing sales and such, conservative politics just wants the shit banned outright.

This issue doesn't fall cleanly down the two-party line; it's an issue I have with all parents.

[Widgetcraft]

This Yee guy wastes so many taxpayer dollars and wasting the system's time with his failed and frivolous legislature I'm curious as to why the guy still is in office. He needs to lose his seat when it comes election time.

This is what people don't get: These constant attempts to reinvent laws that have been struck down already cost money. In my opinion, pulling this kind of shit should be illegal; Yee is actively harming the state.

[Johan]

Oh well, me arguing this point is like preaching to the choir and beating a dead horse simultaneously....

One of those wouldn't go over very well in California. The other leaves you with a dead horse. :D

BTW: I'd like to remind my liberal brethren here who are fond of relying on the courts to open the floodgates to their views becoming the law of the land that all it takes is ONE court and this will become a snowball on its way to overall and growing adoption around the country...whether the majority likes it or not!

Yup...rely upon the courts! :D

[walkstheplanes]

Personality responsibility and liberal politics are mutually exclusive...sad but true. :(

I've always felt that book, movie, tv, and music censorship was attributed to conservative ideals... In the least, it was this way through the 60's-70's (but a lot from that era withered away). In recent media, the examples shown in "This Film Is Not Yet Rated" suggest that conservatism neuters the artistic vision of many films.

In terms of personal responsibilities, in California we're having a bunch of pro Prop. 8 people trying to keep gays from getting married. Seems to me they're trying their darndest to get the government to enforce their own ideas of a responsible relationship on other people.

Anyways, I'm sure there are tons of examples of liberal whackos who want government control over media (political correctness, for instance), but really there is no reason to claim absolutes as you did on the topic.

One of those wouldn't go over very well in California. The other leaves you with a dead horse. :D

Quite honestly, there's a fairly sizable conservative Christian population in our state. If you're going to play on any stereotype, it's that our animal rights fellows would have a complete fit if shunosi's dead horse beating escapade reached the news.

edit: I fairly certain legislation in this direction is not going to get through California.

edit2: For those of you interested in who's spearheading this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leland_Yee

[walkstheplanes]

The Nanny State for the win.

Adam Corolla said it best...Californians pride themselves on being so progressive and free spirited...yet as state it's one of the most strictly regulated with practically everything being against the law.

We can smoke tons of pot and not get in trouble if we get caught!

[Schnoogs]

Well, I don't see many conservatives fighting 'the good fight' either. Typically, instead of asking for laws preventing sales and such, conservative politics just wants the shit banned outright..

Not for reasons of responsibility though...

[Schnoogs]

I've always felt that book, movie, tv, and music censorship was attributed to conservative ideals.

Oh I agree...this has to do with parenting though...not censorship...parents just can't be trusted to intelligently decide whats appropriate for their children...nope...the nanny state has to make that decision for the parents.

Censorship would be to outright ban it because of some moral reason. This is just another attempt to marginalize American citizens as idiots who can't think for themselves.

[Schnoogs]

We can smoke tons of pot and not get in trouble if we get caught!

And hang with hookers!!!

[Johan]

Quite honestly, there's a fairly sizable conservative Christian population

you left out a word. [I]minority.

[walkstheplanes]

you left out a word. minority.

Still, dead horse mutilation would get more attention than standard Bible thumping. I won't lie -- a lot of Californians could care less about Christian tenets and moral constructs, but we're animal lovers (no, not that kind of lover) before being western religion haters.

[walkstheplanes]

And hang with hookers!!!

Hookers + Pot = Cookies + Milk

[Schnoogs]

In terms of personal responsibilities, in California we're having a bunch of pro Prop. 8 people trying to keep gays from getting married. Seems to me they're trying their darndest to get the government to enforce their own ideas of a responsible relationship on other people.


Again you're mistaking morality for responsibility.

[Widgetcraft]

Again you're mistaking morality for responsibility.

...Defining someone else's morals implies that they are not responsible enough to decide what is right and wrong for themselves.

[Schnoogs]

...Defining someone else's morals implies that they are not responsible enough to decide what is right and wrong for themselves.

Epic fucking fail :rolleyes:

[walkstheplanes]

Well, I'm done with this topic.

On the other hand, how the hell do you and Johan have such humongous post counts after less than a month?!?!?

[Schnoogs]

On the other hand, how the hell do you and Johan have such humongous...

Enzyte for the win....:p

[Johan]

Well, I'm done with this topic.

On the other hand, how the hell do you and Johan have such humongous post counts after less than a month?!?!?

I just reply whenever anyone asks me this question. :)