Yee on SCOTUS Decision

California State Senator Leland Yee (D), the man behind the original legislation that has now made its way to the United States Supreme Court, released a short piece of audio (MP3 here) in which he offers reactions to SCOTUS’ decision to review the law.

Yee termed himself “thrilled” with yesterday’s news, calling it an “affirmation of some of the things that I have been thinking about, working on…”

He called the law a “balanced bill,” saying that “it tries to do what it can to protect and help kids, but at the same time, not trample on our First Amendment.”

Yee on the surprise most felt when hearing that SCOTUS would review the case:

After so many of these bills are coming through, the U.S. Supreme Court is now saying ‘there’s something going on in this country. Individuals are concerned about this and we’ve got to then weigh in and provide some direction for these elected officials.’

Along the way Yee compares the industry-governed ESRB to the “fox guarding the hen house,” and to “having the student pay the teacher to give you the grade.” Yee termed that kind of "conflict of interest" as “unacceptable.”

Yee continued:

At the very least, what’s going to happen out of this Supreme Court review is that the Supreme Court will then provide a pathway for not only California, but for other states as to… if you want to move in this particular direction, how do you do it and protect the First Amendment.

Yee believes the law does not violate the First Amendment, since it is narrowly tailored to the subset of only “ultra-violent” games and because it is not an outright ban, just a form of protection for youths.

Tweet about this on TwitterShare on FacebookShare on Google+Share on RedditEmail this to someone

28 comments

  1. jccalhoun says:

    Here’s a link to the actual segment: http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2010-04-28/violent-video-games

    I think it is really worth listening to because Craig Anderson was on it and I was pleasantly surprised that Diane Rehm’s first question to him was "what is the difference between agression and violence?" Anderson initially tried to avoid answering the question but then Rehm reasked the question and Anderson admitted that while violence is generally understood as an extreme form of agression, it is very rare for agression to actually turn into violence.  I think that it really key because in that statement Anderson (who also in this CNN video says that videogame-caused "agression" isn’t really any worse than film or television-causes "agression" http://www.cnn.com/2010/CRIME/04/26/scotus.violent.video.games/index.html ) says that videogames don’t really make kids violent. 

     

    If the most well known person who thinks videogames cause agression doesn’t think they make you violent then that makes the case that they are so bad that we need laws against selling them much harder to prove.

     

     

     

     

    http://www.popularculturegaming.com

  2. Arell says:

    I feel kind of bad about it.  I mean, she has some sort of speech disability, and I suppose we’re supposed to be supportive that she works in radio dispite that.  But I really find it irritating.

    But listening to the show now.  It sounds informative and balanced, and would be good for people that don’t know much about the issue.  One of the psychologists is really playing up the "connection" between video game violence and kids beating each other up and learning to kill.  The other child psychologist is more reasonable and is saying that "aggressive behavior" is not the same as "violence." and some aggressive play is healthy for young people and adults alike.

    Yee is sticking to the "think of the children!" defense, the ESA guy is talking about how the voluntary system already in place already works to inform parents, and the Constitutionalist leaned towards it be protected free speech, but then started rambling a bit.

  3. Arell says:

    The Diane Rehm show on NPR is devoting an hour to this issue, and has Yee on there, as well as some psychologists, Constitutional law professors, and I think someone from the ESA.  I don’t particularly like the show in general, since Diane is hard to listen to, but whatever.

    http://thedianerehmshow.org/

  4. gellymatos says:

    Yee: "Okay, a simple "wrong" would’ve done just fine."

     

    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

  5. TBoneTony says:

    Me not saying anything…I will only wait to see what the surprime court might have to say.

    However I do believe that Senator Yee should be voted out of office, or at least retire if this final attempt for a bill fails and once again runs into 1st Admendment issues.

    It is for this reason why I kinda wish that Australia had the 1st Admendment, as least you guys in America don’t have the internet filter looming over your heads…

  6. Erik says:

    I say that we ban all newspapers.  It wouldn’t violate the First Amendment as it doesn’t ban all printed word.

    Yeesh.  One genre of a media being targeted for censorship is still censorship.  You can’t claim that you aren’t a murderer because you only murdered one guy.

    -Ultimately what will do in mankind is a person’s fear of their own freedom-

  7. BearDogg-X says:

    Yee’s off being delusional again, I see. The man should get a life. Yee, "What you’ve just said is one of the most insanely idiotic things I have ever heard. At no point in your rambling, incoherent response were you even close to anything that could be considered a rational thought. Everyone in this room is now dumber for having listened to it. I award you no points, and may God have mercy on your soul.”

    Geaux Saints, Geaux Tigers, Geaux Hornets, Jack Thompson can geaux chase a chupacabra. Hell will stay frozen over for quite a while since the Saints won the Super Bowl.


    Proud supporter of the New Orleans Saints, LSU, 1st Amendment; Real American; Hound of Justice; Even through the darkest days, this fire burns always

    Saints(3-4), LSU(7-0)

  8. Kamendae says:

    “having the student pay the teacher to give you the grade.”

    Isn’t that what college is all about?  The student pays the university, who pays the teacher to grade the student.  Doesn’t guarantee you get the grade you *want*…

  9. Father Time says:

    I wonder if Yee also thinks private schools have a conflict of interest.

    —————————————————-

    Debates are like merry go rounds. Two people take their positions then they go through the same points over and over and over again. Then when it’s over they have the same positions they started in.

  10. PHOENIXZERO says:

    This from the guy that accepted HOW much in "campaign contributions" from film/television studios again? It’s a good thing they have a real watch dog who can be trusted to not have any interest in "guarding the hen house" in the MPAA for film which has absolutely no ties to the studios of the programs they rate, no sir!


  11. Chris Kimberley says:

    "You needn’t take it any further, sir. You’ve proved to me that all this ultraviolence and killing is wrong, wrong, and terribly wrong. I’ve learned me lesson, sir. I’ve seen now what I’ve never seen before. I’m cured! Praise god!"

    I’ve read "ultraviolence" too many times today to not quote this.

    ===============

    Chris Kimberley

  12. Shoehorn Oplenty says:

    "Yee believes the law does not violate the First Amendment, since it is narrowly tailored to the subset of only “ultra-violent” games…"

    Who gets to decide what is and is not "ultra-violent"? Would the original Doom with it’s lower res graphics be "ultra-violent"? TF2 has people blown to bits but in comical cartoonish looking ways, "ultra-violent" or not?

    Then there’s just personal taste. What is "ultra-violent" to one person might just be strong to another.

  13. jedidethfreak says:

    He IS among those people.  Remember that James Cameron himself said that Avatar was nothing but a multi-million dollar political message about gamers not caring for their own bodies.

    With the first link, the chain is forged.

  14. hellfire7885 says:

    He lives/works in the states where most big movie production companies are, so no big surprise.

    He may be among those that see game developers as nothing more than stereotypical nerds.


  15. Adrian Lopez says:

    You know what… you’re right. It’s just that it pisses me off to see the guy portray the law as something it is not. He probably believes it, though, so I guess I should feel sorry for him instead of detesting him.

    PS – Funny how he only cares about "the fox guarding the hen house" when it comes to video games and not when it comes to movies (the MPAA).

  16. jedidethfreak says:

    Pretty much.

    "With the first link, the chain is forged."  Hey, I think I’ll quote that.

    You KILL Vampires. You don’t DATE them.

  17. Zerodash says:

    "Yee believes the law does not violate the First Amendment, since it is narrowly tailored to the subset of only [INSERT THING YOU WISH TO CENSOR] "

  18. hellfire7885 says:

    Love how he’s playing it off like he already won this. And he isn’t kidding anyone, it won’t be parents winning at all, this is only for him.


  19. E. Zachary Knight says:

    After so many of these bills are coming through, the U.S. Supreme Court is now saying ‘there’s something going on in this country. Individuals are concerned about this and we’ve got to then weigh in and provide some direction for these elected officials.’

    Yep. They will slap you accross the face and tell you that you are an idiot.

    Along the way Yee compares the industry-governed ESRB to the “fox guarding the hen house,” and to “having the student pay the teacher to give you the grade.” Yee termed that kind of "conflict of interest" as “unacceptable.”

    Does he feel the same way about the Movie rating system? Doesn’t look that way as he has not authored any bill that would regulate film in the same way.

    At the very least, what’s going to happen out of this Supreme Court review is that the Supreme Court will then provide a pathway for not only California, but for other states as to… if you want to move in this particular direction, how do you do it and protect the First Amendment.

    He is right there. They will provide a path. But it will not be one that he wants as they wil lstrike this down.

    E. Zachary Knight
    Oklahoma City Chapter of the ECA
    http://www.theeca.com/chapters_oklahoma


    E. Zachary Knight
    Divine Knight Gaming
    Oklahoma Game Development
    Rusty Outlook
    Random Tower
    My Patreon

  20. gellymatos says:

    "‘Along the way Yee compares the industry-governed ESRB to the “fox guarding the hen house,” and to “having the student pay the teacher to give you the grade.” Yee termed that kind of "conflict of interest" as “unacceptable.”‘"

    I would call such assumptions that ESRB is for some reason biased in such a way that allows for lower ratings as unacceptable. Game studios have had to alter their games for ESRB, but ESRB doesn’t alter it’s own rules just to allow a game that is meant to be "M" as "T".

    "The difference between genius and stupidity is that genius has its limits." -Albert Einstein

  21. ZippyDSMlee says:

    Politicians…a good reason to not to trust them,pay them let them be in office for longer than 400 days and allow others to lobby them…..


    Until lobbying is a hanging offense I choose anarchy! CP/IP laws should not effect the daily life of common people! http://zippydsmlee.wordpress.com/

Comments are closed.