Community | September 10, 2008 | 3 comments

Federal Appeals Court Scheduled to Hear California Game Law Case

Image
Nettle
October 29th is shaping up as a big day for the video game industry.

On that morning, oral arguments concerning California's contested 2005 video game law will be heard by judges of the U.S. 9th Circuit Court in Sacramento.

As GamePolitics readers may recall, the law crafted by then-Assemblyman Leland Yee restricted the sale of "ultra-violent" games to minors. Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed it into law on October 7th, 2005 but a federal court injunction blocked the measure from going into effect.

In August, 2007 U.S. District Court Judge Ronald Whyte ruled that the law was unconstitutional. Gov. Schwarzenegger, who has been enriched by his portrayal in several violent games (see pic), made the decision to appeal the ruling not long after. The actual appeal was filed in January of this year.

Given the late October time frame, a decision from the 9th Circuit won't likely come until well into 2009.

-------------------------

Regardless of whether or not you think violent video games have a negative impact on a child's mental health is irrelevant.

What most politicians (and other people) don't realize is that when you ban the sale of M-rated games to minors, you make censorship actionable by law, which is supposed to be prevented by the First Amendment. Few people know that it's not actually illegal for minors to buy R movies (porn is in a different category), but most stores have a policy that requires you to be at least 17. Plus, nearly all parents understand the MPAA rating system, while they refuse to educate themselves about the ESRB and then buy their kids "Super Fun Kill Game" without knowing what they're doing.

If this doesn't make it, we're screwed.
  1. groups:
  2. tags:
    Video Games California Freedom of Speech Arnold Schwarzenegger 6 more
  3.     
    |

3 comments // Federal Appeals Court Scheduled to Hear California Game Law Case

  • MeganMcKenzie
    • 0
      MeganMcKenzie  
    • Families who sit down for a family meal daily and have discussions and family meetings produce healthier children. Families that teach the power of choice and actually model that behavior are healthier than patriarchal dictator families or do whatever you want because I am busy, tired, families.

      Isn't teaching our children how to think through issues our most important task as a parent? Isn't showing a child what consequences comes from making poor choices that are hurtful part of what we should do when they are young?

      I dislike violence on TV, games, movies, and in my personal life.

      I don't think censorship works. I have always found it weird that we censor sex and let children watch movies where folks are cut up with chainsaws.

      Arnie S. is a hypocrite as he certainly made enough violent films.

    • 3 years ago
  • rightbrain
    • 0
      rightbrain  
    • I still remember the landmark Judas Priest case back in the eighties. The precedent is still totally relevant today.
      It comes down to brain chemistry. If your endocrine system can't distinguish between fantasy and reality, then you have more problems than a tasteless video game. And if it's not the game that sends someone off the deep end, it will be something else; game shows, traffic, church, Judas Priest songs...

    • 3 years ago
  • bluestranger
    • 0
      bluestranger  
    • Censorship has never worked in the U.S. They have tried to ban Rock, Metal, and "Black" music. How well did this work? It only made these genres more popular. The first thing that I wanted to do was to go out and try everything my parents told me not to. Especially if they didn't have a pausible explanation as to why I shouldn't. Who is to say what will be considered ultra-violent. The gubenator?

    • 3 years ago

top videos