California 2005 Video Game Law Ruled Unconstitutional
California 2005 Video Game Law Ruled Unconstitutional
August 6, 2007
Read the ruling here . A federal district court judge has ruled California's 2005 video game law unconstitutional, ending a legal fight which lasted nearly two years.
The bill, championed by then-Assembly Speaker Leland Yee (D) was signed into law by Republican Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger (left) on October 7th, 2005. The video game industry filed suit to block the law 10 days later.
Judge Ronald Whyte issued a preliminary injunction on December 22nd, blocking the California law from its planned effective date of January 1st, 2006. Since then, both sides have been waiting for Judge Whyte's final ruling. Today it has come.
A lot has happened since the suit was filed. The main plaintiff, the Video Software Dealers Association, no longer exists. The organization merged with the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association last year and is now known as the Entertainment Merchants Association, representing video game retailers and renters.
Doug Lowenstein, of course, is no longer with the video game publishers' association, the Entertainment Software Association, another plaintiff in the case. Mike Gallagher now heads the ESA. And Leland Yee moved from the California Assembly to the State Senate in November, 2006.
From Judge Whyte's ruling:
The evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, internet sites or other speech-related exposures.
Although some reputable professional individuals and organizations have expressed particular concern about the interactive nature of video games, there is no generally-accepted study that supports that concern. There has also been no detailed study to differentiate between the effects of violent videos on minors of different ages.
The court, although sympathetic to what the legislature sought to do by the Act, finds that the evidence does not establish the required nexus between the legislative concerns about the well-being of minors and the restrictions on speech required by the Act.
A PUBLICATION OF THE ECA
SUBSCRIBE
LOGIN
Copyright © 2007 ECA. All rights reserved.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Game Politics and Game Politics logo are trademarks of the ECA.
Comments
I really need to learn my legal mumbo jumbo... I have to admit, I don't know much beyond what Phoenix Wright taught me ^_^;;
And I really lost all faith in the claims that violent games cause people to commit violent crimes a while ago when some big games critic cited Kingdom of Loathing (kingdomofloathing.com) caused a man to slaughter a group of girls.
For everyone's reference, KoL is a game with stick-figure graphics, where you can boost your defense by wearing an item called an Asshat.
@ Shih Tzu: You made my day!
Not unconstitutional for movies? What exactly do you mean? There is no law regulating children's access to movies. Please don't tell me you didn't know that, because that would truly be "awfully stupid". In fact, children have an easier time getting their hands on R rated DVD movies than M rated video games. Just look at what the Federal Trade Commission found:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2007/04/marketingviolence.shtm
HA!!
Thanks for the highlights Zachary :)
- - - -
Its weird how surprising it is when the american legal system actually works the way it was intended...
I'm going to guess more than what it cost Illinois.
I was wondering when the judge would get around to releasing a verdict.
Anyway back when they made this bill, states were not sued for legal fees when the bills were found unconstitutional, so do you think California will be spared? (I hope so because that's where I live).
:(
"The government cannot constitutionally premise legislation on the desirability of controlling a person's private thoughts. First Amendment freedoms are most in danger when the government seeks to control thought or to justify its laws for that impermissible end. The right to think is the beginning of freedom, and speech must be protected from the government because speech is the beginning of thought."
"Violence has always been and remains a central interest of humankind and a
recurrent, even obsessive theme of culture both high and low. It engages the interest of children from an early age, as anyone familiar with the classic fairy tales collected by Grimm, Andersen, and Perrault is aware. To shield children right up to the age of 18 from exposure to violent descriptions and images would not only be quixotic, but deforming; it would leave them unequipped to cope with the world as we know it."
All in all, pretty good to see.
"In light of the fact that, upon turning eighteen, one can vote and fight in a war, a showing needs to be made that an individual nearing the age of majority needs to be shielded from uncensored speech to the same extent as an early adolescent."
I loved it so much, I gotta hear it again!
"The evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, internet sites or other speech-related exposures."
One more time for the people in the back!
"The evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, internet sites or other speech-related exposures."
(I can't find a really, really, good "Amen!" song on YouTube to put here. Just start singing it, that'll work!)
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
There are others, who just believe it's what needs to be done, which is far more dangerous.
After our invasion of Iraq and all that went into that with the lying, the misinformation to the public, the blatant disregard for international law and the number of times the constitution of the USA have been tested (and I'm sure we'll soon find out in time, broken on several occassions) I don't hold much faith in this Adminstration's era to up hold our laws too.
To all the people fighting to make sure we as gamers not only still enjoy our liberties as gamers but also as people of a free and democratic world, thank you very much. It is oh so appreciated.
On the other hand, feel free to aim as much crowing and boasting at Leland Yee as you want. :D
For instance, in state courts, judges have no more than 90 days to issue a ruling. If they don't, then they are not allowed to collect a paycheck. Maybe that's how the federal courts should operate.
Still about f'ing time, though.
Actually, Thompson claimed this bill would be found constitutional and actually praised Yee because the bill was specific and sought to regulate video games the way obscene material is regulated using similar prong tests (he also claimed the same thing about the Louisiana bill, which was also ruled unconstitutional even though Thompson claimed it was "bullet-proof").
Anyway, Leland Yee should learn not to lie just to get his bills passed. Check this article out:
http://www.d3dgames.com/yee.html
You should demand your millionaire Governor to pay the legal fees from his own purse.
Maybe a ballot to that affect in the next election cycle?
You'd be surprised. Court cases, particularly ones that can overturn existing laws, can take a LONG time to resolve. Very, very rarely do things get wrapped up as neatly as they do on Law & Order. Lawyers will try to cite past cases, amicus curae (friend of the court) briefs will be introduced, experts will be called in... the wheels do tend to turn a bit slowly.
Whyte's ruling is very concise and to the point. There's simply not enough evidence to justify such restrictions on games.
--TR
http://lawofthegame.blogspot.com/2007/08/california-game-law-unconsituti...
But totally expected/10
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, except in the case of interactive electronic simulations; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
I mean, it's right there.
And, Mr Yee, if you see this, I certainly hope we don't see a repeat.
Suck it, douchebags.
Anti-First Amendment Idiots: ZIP!
=D
theyre not banning the sales of violent video games to everyone, just minors.
while I enjoy them personally, and as I know many people also do,
I do NOT like the idea of my neighbor's nine-year-old son getting his paws on a game like grand theft auto, where picking up a whore and then killing her is rewarded. We have laws preventing children from getting their hands on disgustingly graphic or morally bankrupt movies, there should be a similar law for games. While there is NO proof that violent games cause violence in your average Joe, there is DECADES worth of proof that graphic images and ideals CAN disrupt a YOUNG and naive mind. I myself became prone to beating people up after becoming addicted to "Ninja Turtles" at the age of six, which my mother put a stop to. While I do not think it fair to limit sales, we need to find some way to keep VERY young children, like my nine-year-old neighbor, from buying games along the lines I formerly described.
sorry for the multiple posts!
gamer, there IS a restriction on underage persons when it comes to movies!
it is illegal for someone under the age of seventeen to go to a movie that is rated R unless accompanied by an adult, and a person under the age of seventeen cannot purchase nor rent a rated R movie without an adult present.
no kidding!...
Post new comment