Children’s advocacy groups Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum have filed amicus briefs in support of California's Violent Video Game Law, according to Gamasutra (thanks E. Zachary Knight). Both pro family groups believe that violent media can have an adverse affect on the mental well being of children, so their support for the California law does not come as a surprise.
In its legal brief, Common Sense Media said that it supports the law because "children are more likely to be harmed by the effects of exposure to violent video games than adults, and the potential damage to their psychological development differs from any damage caused to adults." "Denying the existence of a right of children to obtain violent video games would strengthen parents’ ability to determine what content is appropriate for their children, and would be consistent with the Court’s precedents," it said. [PDF]
In a separate brief, Eagle Forum said that it believes that "playing a video game is conduct rather than constitutionally protected free speech," and that violent games "may be a danger to minors." That's at least a new argument.
"The risk of harmful effects from being exposed to violent video games is far greater than many other risks that receive more attention and regulation, such as exposure to lead, second-hand smoke, and asbestos," it said. [PDF]
Today's amicus briefs in support of the California Law follow news yesterday that Connecticut joined ten other states in supporting California’s right to regulate the sales of videogames to minors.
Briefs from the Entertainment Merchants Association the Entertainment Software Association will be filed sometimes on or before Sept. 10, while others individuals and groups that support the appeals court decision to strike down the law as unconstitutional will file amicus briefs Sept. 17.
The Supreme Court will review the case later this year.
Comments
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
"The risk of harmful effects from being exposed to violent video games is far greater than many other risks that receive more attention and regulation, such as exposure to lead, second-hand smoke, and asbestos"
*bangs head on wall* Stupidest...*bang*...thing...*bang*...I've...*bang*...read...*bang*...all day!
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
The eagle forum is cut from the same cloth as the parent trash cult so it's no surprise that they'd be just as wacko.
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
"Denying the existence of a right of children to obtain violent video games would strengthen parents’ ability to determine what content is appropriate for their children, and would be consistent with the Court’s precedents"
Somebody please tell me how children are going to obtain a $60+ game without help from a parent.
"The risk of harmful effects from being exposed to violent video games is far greater than many other risks that receive more attention and regulation, such as exposure to lead, second-hand smoke, and asbestos"
Lead can kill you. Second-hand smoke can kill you. Asbestos can kill you. Violent video games, no matter how badly you may want them to, cannot kill you. Unless you eat the disc and it causes serious internal bleeding, but I mean any cd/dvd can do that, including the latest compilation of christian folk music, so... In any case violent video games are not hidden killers, waiting to strike out at your children and inflict them with serious disease or death... they're completely obvious and quite likely harmless. You simply cannot compare that to these 3 hidden killers, possibly waiting in jewelry, walls, even kid's toys. They can make children sick or even kill them, and do so quite rapidly, all while you remain unaware, often until it's too late.
tl;dr you cannot compare video games to proven, pervasive, and deadly threats like lead, smoke, and asbestos.
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
"Common Sense Media"
I sense an oxymoron here. Or maybe just a group of morons.
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
Oh I agree with you on that part.
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
I hope Scwarzenegger is proud that the group that didn't want him allowing students to learn about Homosexuality in the classroom are now backing him, maybe THAT will give him some inkling as to the kind of road he is walking down.
Still, as has been pointed out, considering the precedants, let the old people rant about Video Games on their lawn...
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
Well, this law is doomed then.
I won't be surprised if the Eagle forum is planning sting operations in anticipation of it actually passing.
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
Placing a restriction in this case does not strengthen parents rights/abilities. What if a parent allows it? Does that place them in violation of the law under their argument?
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
I don't know about their argument, but under the law, no.
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
In other news... The Eagle Forum wants the law amended so that any child caught with an M rated game gets a bible stapled to the inside of their eye lids.
When asked for comment, Gayle Ruzicka responded "Staples don't hurt children. Video games do." Apparently, it's in Psalms...
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
I expected a who's who of advocacy groups to lend their support to this law. Wouldn't be surprised if Campaign for a Commercial Free Childhood follows suit.
Meanwhile, any word on the amicus from our side? Hopefully the MPAA, RIAA, and Comic Book Legal Defense Fund come to our aid the way they have done with the other laws.
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
Is anyone surprised that the Eagle Forum would do this? That woman spawned one of the dumbest children in the history of the human race.
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
Ah yes, the man who operates a wiki where he bans anyone who edits an article to be any different from his worldview.
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
"Both pro family groups believe that violent media can have an adverse affect on the mental well being of children, so their support for the California law does not come as a surprise."
It does to me. First of all, there's no evidence to support that belief so where the heck does it come from? Second, the law would do zero to protect children from the alleged harm so why are they supporting it?
Andrew Eisen
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
Because the law has become a "foot in the door" issue for these groups. If they can get the law upheld, then they'll have effectively solidified the idea that children need to be protected from violent games, just like porn. Then they can start working on making it illegal for children to "play" violent games, not just "buy" them. Video games are, of course, evil and this is just the first step for extremist conservative groups towards banning content they don't like.
Yee himself probably believes his law is intended to help parents make good decisions, but that doesn't stop others with an agenda from latching on to this SCOTUS case for their own twisted means.
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
I'm kind of surprised that anyone would file Amicus Briefs in support of this law...though considering it's the Eagle Froum doing it, well, that doesn't surprise me one bit (listen to their radio interview w/ JT BTW. Still spewing the same BS as ever).
I'm getting the impression that with all these other groups getting involved that there's more interest in this case than I initially thought, and it's looking like a legal tug-of-war trying to influence the court's decision one way or another. So what's the likelihood of any of these briefs successfully swaying SCOTUS' decision?
On a slightly related note, I also read Shawn Gordon's article on Game Informer's website where he plays devil's advocate on behalf of the bill. Interesting reading, though he dodges the issue that regardless, it would still give a voluntary ratings system force of law.
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
Wait wait wait WAIT!
"The risk of harmful effects from being exposed to violent video games is far greater than many other risks that receive more attention and regulation, such as exposure to lead, second-hand smoke, and asbestos"
They seriously think that fake violence is more harmful than asbestos and lead? God damn...that's just....that's just stupid.
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
They part struck me as the WTF moment. Really fake violence in video game is more harmful then exposure to lead and asbestos, WOW. I think they reach a new level of stupidity when they said that. What will they say next?
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
Not only that, but if I recall correctly, this is the same group that considered consumer protection to be a communist plot to destroy godly capititalism.....
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
I'll assume they were just fine with the cadmium that was in those Shrek drinking glasses then.
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
"godly capitalism"? that's laughable. those conservatives at Eagle Forum must have missed the part where Jesus said that in order to get into heaven, one must be extremely poor, like a communist ("a camel has a better chance of getting through the eye of a sewing needle than a rich man has of getting to heaven"), as well as the verse that list eagles under abomations
岩「hey Glenn Beck, I heard you oppose Net Neutrality, so we blocked your site.」
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
"playing a video game is conduct rather than constitutionally protected free speech"
And reading a newspaper is conduct rather than constitutionally protected free press.
The right to consume material protected by the First Amendment is kind of inherent in the right to produce it.
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
Publishers have the right to produce pornography, but not everyone has the right to 'consume' that material that was protected under the First Ammendment. The First Ammendment covers rights to produce, not rights to consume.
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
"Publishers have the right to produce pornography, but not everyone has the right to 'consume' that material that was protected under the First Ammendment."
True. Pornography is a special case and the backers of this law are seeking to create another special case.
"The First Ammendment covers rights to produce, not rights to consume."
Now that's just silly. What would be the point of the First Amendment if the government could say "You can print that newspaper but we're going to declare it's illegal for people to read it"?
Of course the First Amendment covers rights to consume. The ban on selling pornography to minors doesn't prove that it doesn't, it merely demonstrates that there are exceptions.
Re: Common Sense Media and Eagle Forum Back California Game ...
And that is one of the fatal mispreceptions that has existed with Freedom of Speech/Freedom of Expression.
It should not only be about the Right to Transmit, but the Right to Receive that Speech/Expression.
Nightwng2000
NW2K Software
http://www.facebook.com/nightwing2000
Nightwng2000 is now admin to the group "Parents For Education, Not Legislation" on MySpace as http://groups.myspace.com/pfenl