Where Politics And Video Games Collide

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.