If CA Wins, DE Pol Primed to Introduce Similar Legislation

A trickle down effect is one of the game industry’s biggest fears if the Supreme Court does eventually rule in favor of California in Schwarzenegger vs. EMA, and one politician, known for her anti-game legislation attempts in the past, is chomping at the bit for just such an opportunity.

Delaware Representative Helene Keeley (pictured), a Democrat, attempted to introduce legislation in 2006 that would have placed violent videogames under her state’s obscenity statute. Her efforts sailed through the House, but failed to pass the Senate.

More recently, she introduced legislation that would make it mandatory for ESRB ratings to be displayed in retail at the point of sale in addition to barring retailers from selling adult-rated games to minors.

In an article appearing on Delaware Online, Keeley let it be known that if the California law is upheld, she is “prepared to introduce similar legislation” in Delaware. The Rep. added, “I still don’t think that it is appropriate for young children to see that amount of violence.”

Keeley was up for reelection on Tuesday, and, unfortunately for the game industry, won handily, beating her Working Families Party challenger Robert Bovell by a reported 3,285-669 margin.

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


  1. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Thank you for proving my point.  The fact is, it’s the conservatives in government who are fighting FOR keeping games protected as free speech, NOT the liberals.  And I’m not just talking "extremists," either.  Take the recent GP article about Rush Limbaugh, for example.  Here’s a man who’s been called an "extremist" for quite some time, someone whom many liberals just brush off as a quack.  HE has come to defend gaming, but none of the liberals on GP have called out Yee or this lady anywhere near as quickly as they’d call out any liberal who says ANYTHING negative about ANYTHING liberals like.

    Need more proof?  How about the other recent GP article about the conservative group that stood up for gaming?  The liberals on here, instead of thanking this group for their support, ATTACKED them because the dude could have admittedly worded his argument better.

    You WON’T attack liberals attacking you, but you WILL attack conservatives defending you?  And you wonder why you just got your asses kicked in the polls by "the regular folks?"

    With the first link, the chain is forged.

  2. 0
    black manta says:

    I have always considered myself a Liberal, but at the same time I’m not afraid to oppose nanny-statists like this woman and Yee.  In fact, I was there at the ECA rally partly for that reason.  I also had to explain this to a Conservative friend of mine on my Facebook page who accused me of blindly following the Liberals, which I don’t.  I even told him that the majority of anti-game legislation has been mostly penned by Democrats.  The reasons why I don’t abandon them is:

    1) There are extremists on both sides.

    2) They are the party who, despite their faults, are the most in line with my personal beliefs which include equality for homosexuals and pro-choice.

    3) If the Republicans would get out of bed with the social conservatives, who generally oppose anything I consider remotely fun (i.e., Escapist entertainment like RPGS, video games, Sci-Fi, Fantasy and Horror movies, TV shows books and films; Rock n’ Roll and Heavy Metal music; Porn; smoking pot) then maybe I’d be inclined to vote for them more.  Granted, they’re finally starting to divorce themselves from them now.  But as it is, they’ve got too much of a track record of going against those types of things. 

  3. 0
    jedidethfreak says:

    Wait, ANOTHER Democrat "chomping at the bit" to legislate video games?

    I bet that none of the liberals on GP do anything but continue to complain about conservative extremist groups – that have no bearing on actual legislation – saying "violent games are bad," but won’t actually say anything bad about her, either.

    With the first link, the chain is forged.

  4. 0
    Cheater87 says:

    How many more states will outlaw violent games? :( If big box retailers don’t sell porn they sure as hell won’t sell video games labeled as obscene and I’m sure politicains know that.

  5. 0
    black manta says:

    Is the article referring to DE’s House and Senate or the Federal House and Senate?  I’m assuming the latter.  Let’s hypothetically say the CA law passed.  By the time the justices hand down their ruling, she’ll find the poltical landscape has changed considerably by the time she’s ready to re-introduce it.  Her fellow Dems who would have supported it are no longer the majority, and the current crop of Republicans who got elected seem to be less concerned about social issues and more about the economy.  So if she does, it’s going to be an uphill battle for her.

  6. 0
    Andrew Eisen says:

    “I still don’t think that it is appropriate for young children to see that amount of violence.”

    And that’s perfectly fine.  So do your job and don’t allow your children to consume media containing such violence.

    Oh, you mean you’re not comfortable with my kids seeing that amount of violence.

    Well, tough rocks, lady.  You have no say in the matter.  If I want to send my kid to the store to pick up a copy of Madworld, that’s my parental perogitive.

    If my kid decides he wants to purchase Postal II, that’s his right.  The only people who can squelch that right are me and the Mrs.  So back off.


    Andrew Eisen

  7. 0
    M. Carusi says:

    That must be some cultural isolation tank she’s living in to not notice that a majority of the justices, the press, and even the SCOTUS Blog are skeptical of the law being upheld.

  8. 0
    Shahab says:

    Philosophically there is nothing that differentiates game violence from movie violence or even violence in music.

    If these laws pass against videogames then there is no reason they should also not be passed in regards to all media. In fact they SHOULD be, not that I support any of this legislation but why single out one form of media and leave the others alone? If their goal is REALLY to shielf minors from harmful content then to do less than pass similar legislation against all forms of media would be hypocritical and morally perverse.

Leave a Reply