Yee Critical of CA Video Game Law Defeat; Urges Appeal

August 6, 2007 -
"Shocked."

That was the reaction of California State Senator Leland Yee (D, left) to word that a federal judge had ruled the 2005 video game law he sponsored unconstitutional. Said Yee via press release:
I am shocked that the Court struck down this common-sense law. AB 1179 worked to empower parents by giving them the ultimate decision over whether or not their children should be playing in a world of violence and murder.

As written, AB1179 would have blocked the sale of ultraviolent games to those under 18. Offending retailers could have been fined up to $1,000. Said Yee:
The $31 billion video game industry has fought any attempt at regulation every step of the way. They fought efforts to publicize their rating system because they thought it would impact sales, and now they’re again putting their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.
 
The deliberations in this case took over a year, which shows that the ever-growing body of evidence that violent video games are harmful to children is getting harder and harder to ignore. The medical data clearly indicates that these ultra-violent video games have harmful effects on kids, and thus we have a state interest to protect them.
 
We simply cannot trust the industry to regulate itself. I strongly urge the Governor and the Attorney General to appeal this decision to a higher court and to the Supreme Court if necessary until our children are protected from excessively violent video games.

Comments

Hey Leland Yee, I'm a parent and I already have the ultimate decision making power... I"M the DECIDER, dammit.

I'll keep my constitution the way it is thankyouverymuch.


-mw

Of course, I don’t really expect Yee to come out and say, “Yeah, I knew from the start that AB1179 was an unconstitutional and ineffective solution to a nonexistent problem but I thought I’d go ahead and waste the time and money of the California courts and taxpayers.”

Would be refreshing if he did though.


Andrew Eisen

"They fought efforts to publicize their rating system because they thought it would impact sales, and now they’re again putting their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children."

So...what's the ESRB ratings for? You'd have to be blind as a bat not to see those labels emblazoned on the box.

Interesting how the Mr. Yee uses "Ultra Violent" so liberally in his speech...as if he's trying to invoke images of Clockwork Orange.

Which medical report was he referencing, btw?

//AB 1179 worked to empower parents by giving them the ultimate decision over whether or not their children should be playing in a world of violence and murder.//

//and now they’re again putting their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.//

Wait, I thought that that was what parenting was all about. They're "giving" them the power? So they didn't have the right to parent their children before?


//We simply cannot allow the industry to regulate itself. I strongly urge the Governor and the Attorney General to appeal this decision to a higher court and to the Supreme Court if necessary until we can bully the wrong people in the name of "justice".//

-Fixed

So so predictable.

Things are so predicable these days that we confidantly pull out our unconsitutional hammers all the time...and that's funny and slightly scary at the same time.

And THIS part was also predicable that he wants to continue to fight it.

His reaction killed half my brain cells.

He talks as if the parents don't have any power over decision making for their kids.....Yee scares me.

Parents already have the ultimate decision-making power. Very few ten years olds have jobs, and even fewer have the $50 (now $60) handy to buy the latest GTA, or RE. The pocketbook is a powerful tool in a parent's aresenal.

I worked toy retail for about eight years, including the whole GTA debacle from GTA3 through Hot Coffee. In my experience (limited to the locations I worked) it was the parents buying GTA, RE, Halo, etc for their kids. When we tried to clue them in that these games may not be appropriate (and we did actually try to do this, even at the risk of losing the sale) the normal response was "Oh, he plays worse", or "He plays it at his freind's house, so it's okay". The parents (for the most part) just did not care, but they were the ones that made that ultimate decision, as they had the money.

The reason these bills get overturned is that they are always vague in their definitions of violence... oh, and that pesky first ammendment thing. If they would just say that you have to be 17 to buy M rated games (which you have to be at most retailers anyways), they might get away with it... of course parents would still buy the games for their precious little ones.

Guh... so much filth and lies spewed from that mans mouth. It's not even worth the effort to comment properly.

AB 1179 worked to empower parents by giving them the ultimate decision over whether or not their children should be playing in a world of violence and murder.

They already have that. It's what makes them parents.

The medical data clearly indicates that these ultra-violent video games have harmful effects on kids, and thus we have a state interest to protect them.

Really? You might try showing some of that data to the courts!

I strongly urge the Governor and the Attorney General to appeal this decision to a higher court and to the Supreme Court...

Oh, so do I.


Andrew Eisen

[...] Ahnuld’s response to the ruling follows bill author Leland Yee’s statement that he was personally “shocked” to learn of the unconstitutional ruling, urging the Governor to appeal the decision. [...]
 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Sora-ChanI realize that they have ways getting around it, but one reason might be due to earthquakes.04/17/2014 - 4:42am
Matthew WilsonSF is a tech/ economic/ trade center it should be mostly tail building. this whole problem is because of the lack of tail buildings. How would having tail apartment buildings destroy SF? having tail buildings has not runed other cities around the US/world04/16/2014 - 10:51pm
Matthew WilsonAgain the issue is you can not build upwards anywhere in SF at the moment, and no you would not. You would bring prices to where they should have been before the market distortion. those prices are not economic or socially healthy.04/16/2014 - 10:46pm
ZippyDSMleeYou still wind up pushing people out of the non high rise aeras but tis least damage you can do all things considered.04/16/2014 - 10:26pm
ZippyDSMleeANd by mindlessly building upward you make it like every place else hurting property prices,ect,ect. You'll have to slowly segment the region into aeras where you will never build upward then alow some aeras to build upward.04/16/2014 - 10:25pm
Matthew WilsonSF have to build upwards they have natural growth limits. they can not grow outwards. ps growing outwards is terable just look at Orlando or Austin for that.04/16/2014 - 4:15pm
ZippyDSMleeIf they built upward then it would becoem like every other place making it worthless, if they don't build upward they will price people out making it worthless, what they need to do is a mix of things not just one exstreme or another.04/16/2014 - 4:00pm
Matthew Wilsonyou know the problem in SF was not the free market going wrong right? it was government distortion. by not allowing tall buildings to be build they limited supply. that is not free market.04/16/2014 - 3:48pm
ZippyDSMleeOh gaaa the free market is a lie as its currently leading them to no one living there becuse they can not afford it makign it worthless.04/16/2014 - 3:24pm
Matthew WilsonIf you have not read http://arstechnica.com/gaming/2014/04/introducing-steam-gauge-ars-reveals-steams-most-popular-games/ you should. It is a bit stats heavy, but worth the read.04/16/2014 - 2:04pm
Matthew Wilsonthe issue is when is doesn't work it can screw over millions in new york city's case. more often than not it is better to let the free market run its course without market distortion.04/16/2014 - 9:36am
NeenekoTrue, and overdone stagnation is a problem. It is a tricky balance. It does not help that when it does work, no one notices. Most people here have benifited from rent controls and not even realized it.04/16/2014 - 9:23am
ZippyDSMleehttp://www.afterdawn.com/news/article.cfm/2014/04/15/riaa_files_civil_suit_against_megaupload04/16/2014 - 8:48am
ZippyDSMleeEither way you get stagnation as people can not afford the prices they set.04/16/2014 - 8:47am
Neenekowell, specifically it helps people already living there and hurts people who want to live there instead. As for 'way more hurt', majorities generally need less legal protection. yes it hurt more people then it helped, it was written for a minority04/16/2014 - 8:30am
MaskedPixelantehttp://torrentfreak.com/square-enix-drm-boosts-profits-and-its-here-to-stay-140415/ Square proves how incredibly out of touch they are by saying that DRM is the way of the future, and is here to stay.04/16/2014 - 8:29am
james_fudgeUnwinnable Weekly Telethon playing Metal Gear http://www.twitch.tv/rainydayletsplay04/16/2014 - 8:06am
ConsterTo be fair, there's so little left of the middle class that those numbers are skewing.04/16/2014 - 7:42am
Matthew Wilsonyes it help a sub section of the poor, but hurt both the middle and upper class. in the end way more people were hurt than helped. also, it hurt most poor people as well.04/16/2014 - 12:13am
SeanBJust goes to show what I have said for years. Your ability to have sex does not qualify you for parenthood.04/15/2014 - 9:21pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician