Activision Blizzard Policy Maker Rails Against California Law

October 11, 2010 -

George Rose, Activision Blizzard’s Chief Public Policy Officer penned a column for the Orange County Register in which he called the California law at the heart of Schwarzenegger vs. EMA “onerous,” and "unnecessary.”

Rose claimed that a SCOTUS approval of the law would “hijack” the First Amendment rights of young people “by unjustifiably creating a special exception to unprotected free speech not only for video games, but any other form of expression.”

He also worried that the law would put “innocent store clerks at serious legal and financial risk,” all for a law that is “already moot.”

Rose explained:

Our industry has in place nationwide a program that costs taxpayers nothing and that is better and more effective at making sure kids purchase age-appropriate games than anything the government is likely to ever come up with.

Rose also wondered how lawmakers and politicians would determine what exactly constitutes a violent game, writing:

Knowing state bureaucrats, such decisions are likely to be consistently made on their extensive educated experience with violence and social and cultural merits of works of art.

After raining further praise on both the industry and ESRB’s efforts in enforcing ratings at retail, Rose took a few shots at California’s financial difficulties:

So what more could California want than a successful, privately funded program, especially when the state sometimes has trouble making payroll? California is a state with a history of budget shortfalls, IOUs, furloughed workers, closed DMV offices, shuttered courts, squeezed school districts where children wait weeks to start school, pummeled university budgets, stretched health care resources and cities without enough money to properly fund their police and fire needs. They all can use state dollars that would be wasted here.


Comments

Re: Activision Blizzard Policy Maker Rails Against ...

urgh we need something in place to limit the governments power seriously

Re: Activision Blizzard Policy Maker Rails Against ...

We do, it's called the Supreme Court of the United States, and they're going to be laying the smack down to this bullshit law soon enough.

Re: Activision Blizzard Policy Maker Rails Against ...

One thing they should mention was that those in power have no problem eliminating the rights they themselves od not use.

Re: Activision Blizzard Policy Maker Rails Against ...

Having a government bureaucrats censoring games seeing which are obscene filth is a slap in the face to freedom. I don't want state offials saying what games can be sold and which can not.

Re: Activision Blizzard Policy Maker Rails Against ...

Actually they'd be determining which games can be sold to minors, though that too is neither Constitutionally sound or justifiably necessary. And, as we can have no doubt, it would inevitably lead to what kinds of games can be sold to anyone, perhaps not directly, but through the fear of putting out any game that may offend the powers that be. That's why this can't be allowed to happen. Fans decide what's entertaining, not some slimey asshole politician just looking to get elected to a higher office.

Re: Activision Blizzard Policy Maker Rails Against ...

Wow, he really stuck it to them. Awesome.

I especially like the comments on how the industry does a better job of regulating itself than the government ever could, and how this law is a such a serious misallocution of resources that the state of CA just doesn't have. Those two key points should've killed the bill long before it ever made it to the governor's desk. And the fact that the powers that be in CA are fighting so damn hard to hold onto that bullshit law is just mind-boggling.

 
Forgot your password?
Username :
Password :

Poll

Which group is more ethically challenged?:

Shout box

You're not permitted to post shouts.
Goth_SkunkNiiiiiiiiiiice!07/08/2015 - 2:03am
Andrew EisenThe original movie's Ecto-1 was a '59 Cadillac. I don't know cars but Twitter tells me this is an '84 Cadillac. The original Ghostbusters came out in '84. Cute!07/08/2015 - 1:14am
Andrew EisenHere's the back side: https://twitter.com/paulfeig/status/61862135787884953607/08/2015 - 1:07am
Andrew EisenNew Ecto-1! https://twitter.com/paulfeig/status/61860585924191846507/08/2015 - 12:58am
Goth_Skunk"The New Totalitarians Are Here" from The Federalist. http://ow.ly/Pjz3b07/07/2015 - 11:31pm
MattsworknameThere was a time in america when we needed unions and they served a good purpose, but that time hasnt been tbe case for about 20 years or more. The same could be said of our current system for teachers in higher educatoin,but thats a whole nother story07/07/2015 - 10:22pm
TechnogeekIn large part, though, that's an extension of the level of unjust deference given to police in general. Kind of hard to find any real grievances to defend against when the organizational culture views "complains about coworker" as worse than "murderer".07/07/2015 - 8:45pm
TechnogeekThat's a police union.07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
TechnogeekNo, police unions are worse by far. Imagine every negative stereotype about unions, then add "we can get away with anything".07/07/2015 - 8:43pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: No, I do not agree they are union members.07/07/2015 - 7:48pm
E. Zachary KnightTeachers unions are just as bad as police unions, except of course you are far less likely to be killed by a teacher on duty than you are a cop. But they also protect bad teachers from being fired.07/07/2015 - 6:29pm
E. Zachary KnightGoth, so you agree they are still union members. Thankfully we have a first ammendment that protects people from being forced to join groups they don't support (in most cases any way.)07/07/2015 - 6:27pm
E. Zachary KnightAh, police unions. The reason why cops can't get fired when they beat a defenseless mentally ill homeless person to death. Or when they throw a grenade into a baby's crib. Or when theykill people they were called in to help not hurt themselves.07/07/2015 - 6:26pm
Goth_SkunkeZeek: Non-union employees have no right to attend meetings or union convention/AGM, or influence policy. The only time they get to vote is whether or not to strike.07/07/2015 - 6:24pm
Infophile(cont'd) about non-union police officers being given hell until they joined the union.07/07/2015 - 4:58pm
InfophileParadoxically, the drive in the US to get rid of unions seems to have left only the most corrupt surviving. They seem to be the only ones that can find ways to browbeat employees into joining when paying dues isn't mandatory. I've heard some stories ...07/07/2015 - 4:57pm
Matthew WilsonI am old school on this. I believe its a conflict of interest to have public sector unions. that being said, I do not have a positive look on unions in general.07/07/2015 - 3:59pm
TechnogeekWhat's best for the employee tends to be good for the employer; other way around, not so much. So long as that's the case, there's going to be a far stronger incentive for management to behave in such a way that invites retalitation than for the union to.07/07/2015 - 3:10pm
TechnogeekTeachers' unions? State legislatures. UAW? Just look at GM's middle management.07/07/2015 - 3:05pm
TechnogeekIn many ways it seems that the worse a union tends to behave, the worse that the company's management has behaved in the past.07/07/2015 - 3:02pm
 

Be Heard - Contact Your Politician