California Video Game Law, Once Again, Found Unconstitutional
from the try-try-again dept
Some California politicians keep running into a pesky obstacle: The US Constitution. Despite court after court across the country finding bans on sales of violent video games to minors to be unconstitutional, "think of the children" politicians continue to try and implement them. In California, legislators passed such a ban and, predictably, it got tossed out by a court. Led by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, the state appealed the ban to an appeals court, which -- you guessed it -- has ruled that it's unconstitutional. But the bill's author is undeterred. He wants the state to appeal the ruling to the Supreme Court and waste more of the cash-strapped state's resources to find out what we already know, but apparently bears repeating: these video game bans are unconstitutional.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Filed Under: bans, california, constitutional, violent video games
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
It's time
If found guilty that law maker should be debarred from ever serving the people of that state or the Federal government ever again. Because it's one thing to repeatedly propose a law and failing, that's just stupid. But to propose it repeatedly after its been found unconstitutional is practically treason.
FYI, we could also propose the same system be enacted for Agencies of the Federal government so much so that if they propose a law that infringes or impedes the people's natural rights under the Constitution that they too are held accountable and reviewable by proper check and balance which is actually engaged in the law making process (i.e. the courts) and is held accountable.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: It's time
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Of course its ok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course its ok
You of course have rational to support your position. It would be interesting to hear what that might be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Of course its ok
If you are referring to the MPAA guidelines like PG13 and R, then you should really understand that those guidelines are not law, but entirely voluntary:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MPAA_ratings#Effects_of_ratings
If your not talking about these guidelines, then what exactly are you referring to?
The USSC has ruled again and again that the only type of speech that can be restricted, but not out-right banned, is that of a sexual nature; in-so-far as movies, games, books, comics, and the like. Of course hate speech and the like can be outright banned, but when referring to mass media like movies and video games, there really isn't anything like that.
As far as the US Constitution is concerned, We the People have the right to choose for ourselves what speech we consume. This freedom is not set out in that document, as having an arbitrary age limit for that particular freedom. Amending that right in anyway is a short and slippery slope to a nanny state which serves no ones interests aside from power-hungry politicians who want nothing more than to control all aspects of your life.
Bottom line is, if a minor purchases a commodity that their parents do not want them to have, then the matter should be settled in the home instead of having the parents absolved of responsible parenting through costly and unconstitutional legislation.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Of course its ok
Pat Robertson ask for a country's leader to be Assassinated.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7WlSYoJQziA
Senator Buttars compares some gays to radical Muslims
http://www.abc4.com/content/news/top%20stories/story/EXCLUSIVE-Senator-Buttars-compares-som e-gays-to/5k4Qh7clXUqlXFxVM2bCxA.cspx
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Of course its ok
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hate_speech#Legal_aspects
This article states that the US cannot abridge even hate speech unless it applies to the victimization of specific individuals. See the landmark case of Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)
Again my apologies for not making the meaning of my earlier post clearer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ok
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ok
You are not alone in that regard.
However, we do not need more laws that will only screw things up even worse - my two cents.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ok
As Ben Franklin said once, "We must ... all hang together or, most assuredly, we shall all hang separately" That quote fits the situation most admirably; If we don't support each others rights together, then we will loose them all, one at a time.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Courtroom Carnage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Courtroom Carnage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Courtroom Carnage
Is that you ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
mother against video games
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: mother against video games
Parent need to take their own responsibility and teach their kids that video game are nothing more or less then interactive forms of art, not to be confused with every day life. Its your responsibility as a parent, and no one else.
Plus its morally unjust to force you will upon the free will of others.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]