Where in the crap are they getting those gameplay examples????

I have never played a game or seen a game that had those scenarios.

Based on an extensive body of peer-reviewed research from leading social scientists and medical associations, we narrowly tailored this law to serve the State’s compelling interest in protecting children.

So where was that research when the law was originally challenged. If it is that conclusive, don't you think it would have warranted showing to the original judge?

Senator Yee's gameplay examples are nothing short of exaggerations.

Also, if the research was that conclusive, the bill would have survived the first legal challenge, wouldn't it?

Unfortunately I am to move to that place.

Perhaps some translation is in order to make the press release more correct:

"California’s violent video game law IMproperly seeks to "protect" children from the UNPROVEN harmful effects of interactive, ultra-violent video games. As stated in the appeal, our efforts to UNDERMINE THE AUTHORITY OF parents REGARDING WHAT THEIR CHILDREN SHOULD OR SHOULD NOT PLAY should survive Constitutional challenge under all levels of judicial review.

Based on an INCREDIBLY SMALL AND NARROW body of peer-reviewed research from leading social scientists and medical associations, IGNORING OTHER CONTRADICTORY YET JUST AS VALID RESEARCH FINDINGS, we narrowly tailored this UNCONSTITUTIONAL law to serve the NANNY State’s compelling interest in protecting children. I am hopeful that the 9th Circuit will overturn the lower courts CORRECT AND REASONABLE decision and help UNDERMINE parents REGARDING the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of UNREALISTIC AND MAKE BELIEVE violence and murder."

"It defies logic to suggest that our founding fathers intended to adopt a First Amendment that would guarantee children the right to purchase a video game wherein the player is rewarded for interactively causing the character to take out a shovel and bash the head of an image of a human being, appearing to beg for her life, until the head severs from the body and blood gushes from the neck."

I dare him to show us the clip of this game. Or even a screenshot. Hell, even tell us what game it is!!!!

"Or guarantee children the right to purchase a video game where the player can cause the character to wound an image of a human being with a rifle by shooting out a kneecap, pour gasoline on the wounded character, and then set the character on fire while the character appears to be alive and suffering."

Again, another make believe scenario from Yee's imagination, where games are apparently photo-realistic.

"Instead, the proper, more reasoned approach to First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes that the rights of minors are not coextensive with those of adults. States must be allowed to legislate to protect the health and welfare of children with certain universally recognized differences between adults and children in mind."

The First Amendment isn't something that you can tailor to your own agenda.

It defies logic to suggest that our founding fathers intended to adopt a First Amendment that would guarantee children the right to purchase a video game

Actually, it would be the other way around. This entire 'protect the children' (and the related romantization and extension of 'innocence) stuff came MUCH later. Even obscenity laws are still fairly new.

The entire idea that children can't handle adult material and must be kept 'separate' is a pretty new concept and, IMHO, rather twisted. I've watched far more damage done to children by trying to force some kind of abstract artificial concept of 'childhood' on people rather then letting them learn what they want to learn when.

"...a video game where the player can cause the character to wound an image of a human being with a rifle by shooting out a kneecap, pour gasoline on the wounded character, and then set the character on fire while the character appears to be alive and suffering."

Holy crap! This game sounds awesome! I want to buy it for my 6 year old cousin!

Ugg...

Maybe he's getting this "video game scenario" mixed with a movie? Resevoir Dogs? Hostel? Various crappy horror movies?

GP, do you have a phone number/address of Yee's office for people to complain about this frivolous lawsuit?

DavCube the game he is talking about is Postal 2.

You have to understand that Senator Yee has NO FACTS to back up his false claims. So he uses inflammatory and sensationalistic terminology to attempt to deceive the court and other citizens to back his claims.

In fact, this isn't an issue of the First Amendment Rights of children, as Yee has falsely claimed. This is about the Rights of Parents to make THEIR OWN decisions as to what is or is not appropriate for THEIR OWN children. Yee's argument, and the arugment of other politicians, has been "ONLY the government knows what is and is not appropriate for YOUR children and the ONLY resource for information available to Parents should be what the government provides". That last bit is proven by the fact of large amounts of actually existing resources for Parents and individiuals to research regarding specific products but the government, including Yee, falsely claims there aren't any resources for Parents to use.

Parents DO have resources to research and make THEIR OWN decisions and retailers DO have policies in place based on the rating system for video games, unlike movies, music, and books.

Leland Yee also attempts to lie to and deceive the court into believing that ONLY interactive media, video games, will lead someone to have emotional responses which may lead to aggressive behavior which may lead to violent response. Anyone performing INTELLIGENT observations will see that even non-interactive exposures can lead to even violent acts, let alone aggressive behavior or even mere emotional reactions.

Yee perfers to throw "protect the children" around like some sick pervert holding up a child to shield themselves from gunfire. Yee, from time to time, does have some decent points, but he overshadows them with sensationalism, misinformation, and outright lies and deceit. Just like any Tin-Pot-Dictator-Wannbe who wants to force their own personal, religious, and/or political beliefs upon others.

What's next Senator Yee? Are you going to scream "Only Right Minded people think like I do! Everyone else worships Satan!"?

Nightwng2000
NW2K software

"It defies logic to suggest that our founding fathers intended to adopt a First Amendment that would guarantee children the right to purchase a video game wherein the player is rewarded for interactively causing the character to take out a shovel and bash the head of an image of a human being, appearing to beg for her life, until the head severs from the body and blood gushes from the neck."

I don't know what "game" he might be referring to. Manhunt 2, perhaps?

"Or guarantee children the right to purchase a video game where the player can cause the character to wound an image of a human being with a rifle by shooting out a kneecap, pour gasoline on the wounded character, and then set the character on fire while the character appears to be alive and suffering."

I'm pretty sure there are no games where you can shoot out a kneecap. I think you can shoot people in the legs in RE4, and you can set people on fire in MH2, but I don't think there are any games that do both.

In short, Lee is taking the most violent examples of video games, blending them into 1 imaginary game, and then using his rhetorical game to further his own cause.

"It defies logic to suggest that our founding fathers intended to adopt a First Amendment that would guarantee children the right to purchase a video game wherein the player is rewarded for interactively causing the character to take out a shovel and bash the head of an image of a human being"

I'm pretty sure the founding fathers would have intended to adopt a guarantee that a child doing something horrible to an image, would in fact be protected, because they didn't equate drawing a picture of a man being decapitated, and actually decapitating someone.

Otherwise you venture into the realm of thought-crime...

Rockstar should sue Yee for intellectual property rights violations.

It would seem that Yee was able to stumble upon the script to the next release of Manhunt.

If the state knows how to raise kids better than their parents why don't we simply give all our kids over to DCS? Video games have labels which define who they are made for. If a parent buys a video game with out reading the label then they simply aren't doing their job. Rather than spending millions of tax payer dollars trying to get an unconstitutional law passed perhaps you should be spending your time educating parents in your state about the video game rating system. At least that would be a public service.

@ SounDemon

In Metal Gear Solid, Meryl gets her kneecap shot out. Of course, you're not the one doing the shooting and it's a cutscene. Although IIRC, if you shoot someone in the knee in MGS, they'll start limping.

Not like Yee's FUD and BS holds up, though.

Yee doesn't seem to be familiar with teh concept of the First Amendment, is he? How the hell did he get to where he is?

Mr. Yee's so called facts are flawed and a lot of the people here have not only shown that, but have also shown the truth of the matter.

@ PeterWDawson: He's from a district in California that would vote for Ann Coulter or Jerry Falwell if they had a (D) next to their names.

@JQ

Yep, San Fran-freakshow. Being across the bay from that city I seriously think that it should be split from the Union because of the huge show of disrepect they've shown to serving US soldiers (family has a long history of military service in 5 major wars; it's a sensitive issue in the family).

FYI, from the wiki entry on him:
On September 4, 2007 it was revealed that IP addresses registered to computers in the California Senate office had made changes to its Wikipedia entry favoring Leland Yee. [5] It was reported that they removed the 1992 shoplifting allegations and the video game controversies sections.

Also along the same train of thought as JT. When in doubt, hide the truth.

@GO
"Being across the bay from that city I seriously think that it should be split from the Union because of the huge show of disrepect they’ve shown to serving US soldiers (family has a long history of military service in 5 major wars; it’s a sensitive issue in the family)."

well obviously you don't value the constitution enough to know it is their right to disrespect soldiers and their duty as citizens to demand the government be held accountable for its actions.

we took an oath to protect the constitution and the union for all citizens, not just the ones who buy those shitty little magnetic yellow ribbons.

OK, OK, time to sit down and listen. I've seen this argument come up countless times, but it really does deserve questioning:

"The player is rewarded for interactively causing the character to take out a shovel and bash the head of an image of a human being..."

Nope. Sorry. In many of these ultraviolent games, the only reward for being excessively violent is the self-satisfying thrill of being excessively violent. Postal does not congratulate you for setting someone on fire. GTA does not provide you with tasty treats for running over prostitutes (though sometimes you might cause them to drop a pitifully small amount of cash, it is hardly a reward when completing a simple mission will get you 10,000 times as much). Skateboarding through a plate glass window in THUG2 rewards you by letting you, um, see a window smash.

Violence against innocents in games is typically something that simply *can happen*. This is where people seem to get the wrong end of the stick: The reward is seeing the consequences of your actions without actually experiencing the consequences in the real world. That's it. What happens if you plant a mine in a pond and then set someone on fire? You can do it in BioShock and have fun watching what happens.

Violent sandbox games reward morbid curiosity with morbid scenes. The depravity you see in these games is only as extreme as your own desire to see it, then scaled back by the limitations of the technology.

I think that when he means that gamers are "rewarded" for performing violent acts in games, he is really saying that there is a lack of punishment for violent actions in games.

I wonder if he would approve of a violent game in which the player character was arrested and sent to jail for the crimes the player made the character perform. Perhaps.

California’s violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of interactive, ultra-violent video games. As stated in the appeal, our efforts to assist parents in the fight to keep these harmful video games out of the hands of children should survive Constitutional challenge under all levels of judicial review.


.
..
...
....
If you didn`t believe it youself, no one else would.

Well, he's obviously using examples from Postal 2. That's it. One game. Yes, you can do those things in the game, but...it's still a game. As I've said before, people that can't distinguish the difference between the game and the real world are the problem here, not the game itself. They are the ones that view the world without consequences, and they honestly do it without the help of any stimuli. That's why in each of these school shooting cases, each of the attackers was shown to be a mentally distressed individual, who just happened to also play video games, as well as, you know, breathe.

Since when did i lose my rights because I can't vote.

Yee, just shut the hell up.

Honestly, all he does is spread lies about video games to get his way.

@EZK:

"Where in the crap are they getting those gameplay examples????"

Same place all the other 'crap' they come up with comes from. ;)

@DarkTetsuya & EZK:

You can actually do that stuff in Postal 2.

ok right story

its a good thing california doesnt need that tax money for anything else

@Cullarn

Indeed, like road repair, freeway expansion, levee repair, schools, a state deficit, teachers, police officers, and that constitutionally illegal Indian gambling bill that's coming up.

Nope, no need for the tax money at all.

This is why you should have voted an actual politician into office.

kids should be able to form their opinion on the basis on uncensored speech (as stated by judge Posner in the first court win for video games). Now put in proper context, those acts of violence can EASILY fall under protected speech, political speech even.

"It defies logic to suggest that our founding fathers intended to adopt a First Amendment that would guarantee children the right to purchase a video game"

The concept of a video game in general (hell probably a TV even) would be completely alien to them so of course they didn't consider them. Now the founding fathers do not determine what is and is not free speech they were never judges (to my knowledge) and they are all dead. We can only conclude that the founding fathers might not approved only because this type of violence would have shocked them, as does a lot of stuff we do today. But even then it's still ignorant to assume you would know the exact opinion of the founding fathers when they never had to deal with the whole issue of 'does violent media = speech'. The fact is though that video games can easily be free speech just as any story with any type of theme is.

Oh and second off, why should the right of free speech to minors be more restricted than that of adults? I'd like to see an answer to that.

So, the few of you that are left, do you still think Yee is a good, well intentioned guy who is just misguided?

Yee, shut the fuck up, and sit down, uber-liberal political troll. You are not bigger than the constitution. Your narrow interpretation of how you wish laws to be is not how the constitution was framed, and minors are not discriminated against.

Yee is a "nanny state" supporter, and doesn't quit. If the ESRB is smart, they will never make nice with this anti-video game politician. At least Yee's consistent on his idiocy.

I have said this before and will continue to repeat, Yee is more dangerous to the video game industry than Johnny Bruce Thompson ever will be, because Yee has actual real legislative power to abuse-Thompson will never be more than someone making a lot of noise.

Now, on to Yee's statements themselves.

1) Quote - "California’s violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of interactive, ultra-violent video games. As stated in the appeal, our efforts to assist parents in the fight to keep these harmful video games out of the hands of children should survive Constitutional challenge under all levels of judicial review."

Answer - No, it does not. See my previous post as to why.

2) Quote - "Based on an extensive body of peer-reviewed research from leading social scientists and medical associations, we narrowly tailored this law to serve the State’s compelling interest in protecting children."

Answer - Again, it has not been "narrowly tailored", if it did, it would include specific ratings that would be deemed too high for minors, which again would be unconstitutional.

3) Quote - "I am hopeful that the 9th Circuit will overturn the lower courts decision and help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder."

Answer - The parents are already empowered but multiple sources which are all third party and independent of the game industry. If a parent doesn't think the ESRB rating is enough, all they need to do is hit the internet, there are a wealth of sources that give a variety of descriptions and opinions of each game, and at least one of them is bound to match the opinions and views of the parent.

4) Quote - "It defies logic to suggest that our founding fathers intended to adopt a First Amendment that would guarantee children the right to purchase a video game wherein the player is rewarded for interactively causing the character to take out a shovel and bash the head of an image of a human being, appearing to beg for her life, until the head severs from the body and blood gushes from the neck.

Or guarantee children the right to purchase a video game where the player can cause the character to wound an image of a human being with a rifle by shooting out a kneecap, pour gasoline on the wounded character, and then set the character on fire while the character appears to be alive and suffering."

Answer - The Founding Fathers intended to adopt a First Amendment that would ensure that any level of government would not censor or restrict access to ANY form of speech, including violent and/or obscene speech, for ALL United States citizens. Questions of taste and appropriateness are entirely up to the individual. This argument has held up in courts at every level several times already.

5) - Quote "Instead, the proper, more reasoned approach to First Amendment jurisprudence recognizes that the rights of minors are not coextensive with those of adults. States must be allowed to legislate to protect the health and welfare of children with certain universally recognized differences between adults and children in mind."

Answer - Courts have proven that minors do have a level of First Amendment rights that are almost, if not the same, as adults. The only way that could be circumvented is if there is 100% proof that a form of speech is proven to be detrimental and harmful to minors, but not adults. This is extremely hard to prove, especially when it comes to teenagers. None of the studies Yee has cited can prove 100% without a shadow of a doubt that playing violent videogames is a direct harm to every minor, no matter what age or level of maturity. Therefore, his argument does not hold.

I'm no expert at law, but I do know enough to blast every point Yee has made in his press release right out of the water. If the appeal follows his press release, I see no reason why any judge at any level could overturn the original ruling.

@Weighted Companion Cube:

Okay, so one game. Which, last I checked was rated 'M', and therefore not for children. Which renders any complaints about the content not being kid-friendly immediately null and void all throughout the universe.

@Thomas

The issue at hand with any form of government enforced ratings (at any level of government), is that it opens things up to blackballing and defacto banning because someone at a high level of power doesn't like something in a game. Like I said before, anyone could call a Loony Tunes game "ultra-violent", advise the game be refused a rating, and therefore ban it from being sold because it does not have a rating. That exact case happened in the UK with Manhunt 2. The two examples are a world apart (Loony Tunes and Manhunt), but they both still stand. There's also a decent chance that, with that type of legislation, T2 and Rockstar could be blacklisted for ratings, and have almost any game held back, even a game that probably wouldn't get an "M" rating.

This is exactly why I'm against this type of legislation.

@Vinzent

Actually the law would only fine retailers for selling the game, and nothing more.

@Thomas:

Spot on. A law that says "thou shalt not sell rated material to minors" isn't necessarily a bad thing. Other countries do it, some people in the US want to do it, and it's about the only thing that the US could do to keep violent games away from kids. Such legislation even gets support in the GP comments.

The same thing could be said about obscenity laws. Porn users across the country would be up in arms if they tried to introduce the restrictions that currently exist. Unconstitutional! Harming nobody! Rar rar rar. Violent media (games and films) are a guilty pleasure that are designed for mature minds - those that understand that it's just fantasy - and could be compared to porn in that sense.

One of the main problems I see is the slippery slope argument, which seems to be something of a national pastime. I don't mean that in a bad way per se; the US is just accustomed to being extremely careful when it comes to the rules. Any nudging against holy texts like the Constitution is seen as a slippery slope to allowing people to marry toasters and banning green hair. The US bases so much of its ethos on personal freedom that any attempt to restrict it is seen as a bad thing.

Telling a child he can't buy Manhunt 2 is like telling a man he can't eat steak. Or something like that.

In case anyone jumps on me for hating America, I don't. The attitude to games in the mass media ia abhorrent and these campaigners deserve to fail. The sad fact is that suppose a law preventing the sale of rated media to minors *did* survive. It would be a matter of weeks before another teen was inspired by a game bought by someone else and then people would be campaigning to enhance the law further... By campaigning against the law in the first place people are trying to stop the problem from ever getting the chance to escalate.

“I don’t really understand the problem with there being a law that says “hey, obey what the box says and don’t sell these things to people younger than that”…” –Thomas

Here are a few reasons:

-There’s no need for one. There are already ratings systems, parental controls, and vast amounts of easily accessible information.

-The gov’t has no right to tell a minor that a particular form of protected speech is inappropriate for him and he can’t have it. That’s a job reserved exclusively for a parent.

-Laws like this actually take away parental options.

-Games don’t harm children so there’s no reason to restrict their sales to them.

-Even if games did cause harm, these laws do nothing to prevent kids from being harmed by them.

-Slippery slope. Chilling effect. Whatever you want to call it. Retailers can’t be sure which games fall under the law so they won’t stock them. Developers will start censoring themselves.

Andrew Eisen

doesn't this go a little beyond gaming? this sentor is actually trying to rewrite the interpretation of the 1st amendment to fit his narrow personal moral perspective.

havn't congressmen been removed for less in the past? thats lunacy

@Vinzent,

I know what you mean, but, at the end of the day, it's your choice to make, not the Governments. It could be argued that Parents can always buy games for their children if they so wish, but, it doesn't remove the problem of 'tarring and feathering' that would take place if such a law were passed for only Video Games.

Personally, I think we'd all have to switch back to those law-abiding non cop-killing heroes of our elders.....

Like Billy the Kid or Jesse James....

Oh wait....

“I don’t think that anyone would be against keeping young children from extremely violent media as young children do not have have the full capacity to understand the difference between reality and fantasy, right and wrong, and what is or is not acceptable behavior in real life situations.” –BmK

Probably not but you still can’t legislate it because it’s not the gov’t’s place to raise our children. How would young children get to a retailer with $60 plus tax anyway?


Andrew Eisen

I wonder if the Judge's friends call him Tater Salad?

What game are they talking about? I honestly have never played any such game.

Video Game voters network, please stop this law as I'm to young to vote...

@MysterX

Thank the founding fathers of this country, and their lifetime contribution, the all-powerful constitution before you thank anyone else.

What Leland Yee wants is not always what Leland Yee gets, especially in this case, since he's failed at every legal turn so far...

DID THAT BASTARD JUST SAY THAT CHILDREN DO NOT DESERVE THE SAME RIGHTS AS AN ADULT!?!?!? FUCK HIM!
Ever since i have been old enough to form an opinion, i been outraged at how unfair the balance is between the rights of children and adults. A childs word is less powerful in a court of law as that of an adult. A child must respect any and all adults, despite the fact that many adults are freaking imbeciles. And now, i have this ass-clown coming up and saying that a childs rights are not equal with that of an adults? Im literally shaking with outrage at such a blatant and insulting statement. Im gonna cut it off early here before i say something i shouldnt.

Leland Yee a failed psychologist that became a politician.

"I for one welcum our new Nanny State overlords"

Maybe they can wipe my ass and feed me because I cant make choices for myself.

Ever get the feeling that they like to beat themselves up in Cali?

I mean honestly, we all know this will be going down the toilet, along with tax dollars. The voters need to call them on this.

He may be talking about this game:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nmA_LmAy7mY&eurl=http://www.boredom-induc...

@koku

I've played a game where you can bash someone in the head with a shovel. It's called hitman bloodmoney. Although that cannot possibly be the game that Lee is describing because it is impossible to decapitate people in that game.

@Thomas

That document which you seem to be very fond of bashing is groundwork for the United States of America-it is THE MOST IMPORTANT DOCUMENT IN THE HISTORY OF THIS COUNTRY. Yes, you have the right to criticize it, but it GRANTS you those rights, assuming you are from the USA. What you...mischaracterize as "religious zealotry" is in fact patriotism by any other name.

I work for the United States Coast Guard as a high level civilian (GS means "General Schedule" grade)-our primary mission is to uphold and defend the constitution, so I must be a religious zealot and so must the men and women that I work with every day.

Semper paratus.

Mr. Yee is simply showing how out of touch with the times he is. Obviously not much of a parent himself, or very informed on any subject means he's allowed to make these kind of demands in bold-faced defiance of the truth.

If he really is talking about Postal 2, then he doesn't realize that it's not a very popular game, It's not a game that's even still made or sold at all. It was a game that was so tastelessly bad that most gamers didn't even waste their time with it. Any parent that buys a game like Postal 2 and let's their child play it is probably well aware of what it is.

Most politician's like Mr. Yee sensationalize the problem by taking the consumer out of the equation and simply screaming that these games are being forced down your children's collective throats by the big bad tobac- Err.. Game Companies. He wants parents to believe that every game store is handing these games out, complete with a loaded gun and a list of good places to shoot someone.

Yes, let's forget that people actually have to actively seek out and purchase these games before they can be played. that means a child has to be given money, left alone at a store, and then allowed to purchase an M-rated game. Let's forget for a moment that nearly every retailer has policies that stop that from happening and just continue with this scenario. A good parent, or even just an average parent, would be involved at some point in this transaction.

Hell, I turn away a dozen little kids every week who try to buy games like Grand Theft Auto from my store, but it's always the parents who come back and let them have it anyways. Maybe parents don't need you making the decision for them, Mr. Yee, maybe they're entirely happy letting their children make the choices for them. Ever consider that?!

@Thomas

constitutional objections aside the biggest issues with the law are it's extremely vague language

they can not use the ESRB as a basis for the law as it's against the law to place governmental power behind a private organization, which leads them to use language such as what is in this bill, which could be interpreted so that just about game is too violent for minors

i mean the obvious titles such as GTA's and manhunts obviously fall under the laws gaze, however, arguments can be made against games such as Mario Strikers being too violent (as you of the option of just repeatedly slamming your opponents into the electric fence)

this leads to the question of how do you decide which games fall under the law, and retailers not knowing which games are ok and which aren't so become afraid to carry them, causing a chilling effect on the industry

ah sht ..anyone seen my grammar...I like I lost it in 62...... >>

LOL

@ illspirit
"This is true of every society in recorded history. As governments grow in power over time, they eventually succumb to revolution (like how we got the US to begin with) or they collapse under their own repressive weight (like the Soviet Union or Roman Empire). Sometimes this can take centuries, sometimes it only takes decades. But it always happens."

What an incredibly simplistic and inaccurate take on history. Aside from failing to understand the causes of the Soviet Union's collapse and the metamorphosis of the Roman Empire into the Byzantine Empire, you fail to take China into consideration - over 3000 years old and still going strong.

@ Thomas, Matthew

If you’re going to infringe on a Constitutional right like freedom of speech based on the claim that the speech in question is “dangerous”, then you better damn well show absolute proof of that. It’s NEVER been done. There is no proof that any harm will come of anyone playing a “violent” video game.

If there is a danger so clear and so threatening to the American people that causes these self-righteous politicians to step on the First Amendment, wouldn’t any rational thinking person have to believe that the danger would have to be so obvious and clear that there would be no argument against it? Especially since you’re directly contradicting a Constitutional amendment.

We, the American people, have not been given any valid reason to believe that this abridging of our freedom of speech is necessary. There just simply isn’t any evidence at all of any danger from “violent” video games. This “protection” from “violent” video games isn’t needed or wanted for that matter, but please feel free to use everyone’s tax dollars for protection from things like a 10-foot storm surge from a Category 3 or greater hurricane or the fuselage of a 747 airplane entering the workplace or the home.

Come to think of it, the ESA and FTC report that 90% of M-rated game sales are to parents. The NPD Group estimates M-rated games make up only 15% of all game sales. And the FTC says minors trying to purchase M-rated games are refused over half the time.

Let’s see….15% of total sales, 10% of that is 1.5% and 42% of that is 0.63% of all game sales.

Since when does 0.63% of all video game sales warrant unconstitutional legislation?

BearDogg-X

Now that is info everyone needs to know!

Why is Yee still alive? I figured he would have chocked on his own shit and rhetoric by now, The only thing we can do is to have all Californian readers do whatever they can to help stop this from passing. Not that I think it will in the first place. For one I'm getting tired of making the same argument against people like this. They never listen to reason .

And of course while the government is "pruning the out of date document", I'm sure they are downright tired of the media's ability to chastise them. Snip-snip.

Edit: on law = one law

@Thomas

i'm sorry to offend your delicate sensibilities, but i think i'll not be taking freedom lessons from a country founded by convicts.

especially ones who are all for censoring their own people (which, you're against yet for the US censoring its people?)

you can just admit you don't get it and be done with your little stunt and we can all move on.

@Monkeythumbs

And which causes of the fall of the Soviet Union am I overlooking, pray tell? The failing, centrally planned economy which drove most of the discontent in the first place? Or the member states who were seeking increased sovereignty and autonomy from Moscow, who instead of giving said member states political compromise and economic incentives to stay in the union, pushed them even further towards secession?

x2 for Rome. Who spent more money trying to keep the bloated empire together to control it than they produced. This lead to increased feudalism at the local levels to protect people from the tax collectors, and increased reliance on mercenaries which in turn lead to factioning of their own military (and ultimately their culture).

As for China, err, you might want to dig out a history book, as their government has changed hands twice in just the last hundred years..

@Zippy

If government could actually be trusted to make a fair set of rules regarding ratings without overstepping their bounds, then, yea, it might not be so bad. However, even if government could be trusted, I still think the market itself could handle it much more efficiently. As it stands, voluntary ratings enforcement works just as well (if not better in some cases) than coercive state regulation of tobacco and alcohol. When and if people feel selling a certain game to minors violates their community standards, they can make lots of noise and vote with their wallets until the offending stores comply. Just as we've seen the ESRB enforcement rate double in the face of game-related controversy while DVD ratings enforcement has stagnated or gone down.

Were the government involved in this process, the only difference would be the bleeding of punitive fines from the economy to coerce the same results. And even then, the bureaucracy involved would likely just slow down the process.

it depends on how they define "Ultra Violent". But it could atleast stop some of the attacks on video games for a while.

[...] I could go on forever about this shit, but I’m going to wrap things up here. I’d like to say that I think it’s great to see prominent figures like Stephen King speak out about things like this. Unless you bring the idiocy of these kinds of things to the forefront, states like: Massachusetts, Arizona, Louisiana, Minnesota, New York, Utah, Kansas and California, are just going to slip them into law without true opposition. And since no one really takes the gaming community seriously, it’s even better to have a non-gamer speak up and say “Hey - I think this is bullshit too”. [...]