Court strikes down California video game law

Agnapostate

Rookie
Sep 19, 2008
6,860
345
0
The Quake State
Court strikes down California video game law - Games - msnbc.com

SACRAMENTO - A federal appeals court on Friday struck down a California law that sought to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2005 law violates minors' rights under the Constitution's First and 14th amendments. The three-judge panel's unanimous ruling upholds an earlier ruling in U.S. District Court.

The law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. It also would have created strict labeling requirements for video game manufacturers.

In a written opinion, Judge Consuelo Callahan said there were less restrictive ways to protect children from "unquestionably violent" video games. For example, the justices said the industry has a voluntary rating system and that parents can block certain games on video consoles.
The law's author, state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, said he wanted Attorney General Jerry Brown to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We need to help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder," Yee, a child psychologist, said in a statement.

The law never took effect and was challenged shortly after it was signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. A U.S. District Court blocked it after the industry sued California over constitutional concerns.

The Encino-based Video Software Dealers Association and the Washington, D.C.-based Entertainment Software Association argued that California's restrictions could open the door for states to limit minors' access to other material under the guise of protecting children.
The court agreed, saying California was "asking us to boldly go where no court has gone before."

"The state, in essence, asks us to create a new category of non-protected material based on its depiction of violence," Callahan wrote in the 30-page ruling.

Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, said the ruling underscores that parents, with help from the industry, are the ones who should control what games their children play.

"This is a clear signal that in California and across the country, the reckless pursuit of anti-video game legislation like this is an exercise in wasting taxpayer money, government time and state resources," Gallagher said in a statement.

Courts in several other states have struck down similar laws.

A commendable ruling. The long arm of the state has traditionally had too much part in illegally and unjustly violating the constitutional rights of youth.
 
Court strikes down California video game law - Games - msnbc.com

SACRAMENTO - A federal appeals court on Friday struck down a California law that sought to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.

The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that the 2005 law violates minors' rights under the Constitution's First and 14th amendments. The three-judge panel's unanimous ruling upholds an earlier ruling in U.S. District Court.

The law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. It also would have created strict labeling requirements for video game manufacturers.

In a written opinion, Judge Consuelo Callahan said there were less restrictive ways to protect children from "unquestionably violent" video games. For example, the justices said the industry has a voluntary rating system and that parents can block certain games on video consoles.
The law's author, state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, said he wanted Attorney General Jerry Brown to appeal the decision to the U.S. Supreme Court.

"We need to help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder," Yee, a child psychologist, said in a statement.

The law never took effect and was challenged shortly after it was signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. A U.S. District Court blocked it after the industry sued California over constitutional concerns.

The Encino-based Video Software Dealers Association and the Washington, D.C.-based Entertainment Software Association argued that California's restrictions could open the door for states to limit minors' access to other material under the guise of protecting children.
The court agreed, saying California was "asking us to boldly go where no court has gone before."

"The state, in essence, asks us to create a new category of non-protected material based on its depiction of violence," Callahan wrote in the 30-page ruling.

Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, said the ruling underscores that parents, with help from the industry, are the ones who should control what games their children play.

"This is a clear signal that in California and across the country, the reckless pursuit of anti-video game legislation like this is an exercise in wasting taxpayer money, government time and state resources," Gallagher said in a statement.

Courts in several other states have struck down similar laws.

A commendable ruling. The long arm of the state has traditionally had too much part in illegally and unjustly violating the constitutional rights of youth.

What is the difference between 'illegally' and 'unjustly' ?
 
yet they can not attend an r rated movie.....have a drink....but they can get an abortion and rent a video game......
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #4
What is the difference between 'illegally' and 'unjustly' ?

The former refers to the formal law, while the latter refers to an ethical standard.

yet they can not attend an r rated movie.....have a drink....but they can get an abortion and rent a video game......

There's no legal restriction on minors attending R-rated movies; that's simply a restriction put in place by the MPAA and voluntarily adopted by theater chains. I've long advocated a boycott of theater chains until they voluntarily abandon that ratings system, as was practiced by students in Mexico when they were forbidden from seeing Y Tu Mama Tambien. There is also no legal restriction on persons under 21 drinking alcohol in the majority of American states. The "drinking age" of 21 is actually a purchase age of 21, and there are only seven states that explicitly prohibit the consumption of alcohol by the underage, though many others also criminalize "possession" and thus charge underage drinkers with "internal possession."

But that's irrelevant, since your juxtaposition of those issues is an instance of begging the question in assuming that others agree with the other restrictions also. I, for one, do not, and there are at least two other people on this board who are likely in full agreement with me. (Amanda and LiveUninhibited.)
 
So does this mean an 11yr could go to game stop with an older teen friend and buy "t" or 'MA' games? I don't see the ban of selling violent games to minors as unconstitutional, or infringing at all. It's not like in 3 yrs these kids can get them freely.
 
  • Thread starter
  • Banned
  • #6
So does this mean an 11yr could go to game stop with an older teen friend and buy "t" or 'MA' games? I don't see the ban of selling violent games to minors as unconstitutional, or infringing at all. It's not like in 3 yrs these kids can get them freely.

Really? On what basis is such a law not unconstitutional? And really, what ethical basis is there for such a law? What causative link has been proven between youth exposure to "unsavory" media elements and various forms of delinquency?
 
Aside from the constitutional implications and disputes, don't you think it is shameful for people to want to abdicate their responsibility as parents by calling for a law to prevent their children from purchasing certain video games? How about spending some time with your kids, or even glancing at the screen they're playing their games on? How about a quick google search on the title of any games they buy or want to buy? If you're too busy to do any of this, then a violent video game is probably the least of your child's problems.
 

Forum List

Back
Top