California Politician Who Wrote Unconstitutional Anti-Video Game Law Plans To Try Again With New Law
from the and-waste-more-taxpayer-money dept
With the Supreme Court agreeing with every other court (well over a dozen of them) ruling that government attempts to ban the sale of violent video games to children is a First Amendment violation, it appears that the politician who came up with California's law isn't about to give up. State Senator Leland Yee held a press conference, in which he claimed that it was an example of the Court siding with "corporate America" over "our children." Yeah, he pulled out the "but think of the children" line that only desperate politicians use."It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children."Except... that's wrong. Nothing in the ruling has any impact, whatsoever, on the rights of parents. Why would Senator Yee make a statement that is clearly dishonest? The ruling was over the rights of children. Parents still have the same rights they had before. Parents are still able to raise their kids in the same way they did before. There is nothing, whatsoever, in the ruling that limits or changes how a parent can raise their kid. Furthermore, as pointed out over and over again (and actively denied by Senator Yee), there is no evidence that violent video games have any impact on "the well-being" of kids. Senator Yee is pandering to a public by misstating what the research says.
Even worse, it appears he wants to waste more California taxpayer money by going through this whole charade all over again. Yes, that's right, he's indicated that he wants to try again with a new law. Apparently, he has his staff "poring through the opinions to see where we can create a pathway for a successful bill that could withstand a challenge." In other words, more California taxpayer money is going to be spent going through another round of legal challenges.
Is it really that hard for him to understand that he's wasting time and money here? This ruling does not restrict parents. The research has failed to show any causal relationship, and all indications are that the "well-being" of children is not at all harmed by such video games. Why bother trying to go through all of this again over a fantasy?
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: california, first amendment, free speech, leland yee, violent video games
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Doublethink:
Senator Yee is obviously a master of doublethink, he no doubt knows how stupid his endeavor is, and yet also knows the huge amount of "good" publicity it generates for him at the tax-payers' expense and believes both are apparently vital.
I, for one, am glad to have Senators wasting time on laws that will be struck down rather than adding useless new laws or passing laws which restrict my liberties.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
No? Then why object?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Because it's not his or your place to say who can and can't buy art.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
Is there something I'm missing? I don't see how an adult's 1st Amendment rights are violated, and a child only has the 1st Amendment rights that their parents allow. Laws such as this provide another tool for parents to control what their kids see or do; they don't stop the production or sale of such items in general.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Besides, it's the same exact bullshit law as the anti-gaming law. It's something that has arbitrarily been deemed adult oriented and backed by misleading if not outright fake studies.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
However, that doesn't make the two the same thing. The video game law would require a parent to take some form of action and obtain the game for their children, after (in theory) looking at the box, finding a rating and the reasons for that rating and determining if that content is appropriate for their child. The scale is still arbitrary, but it still allows the parent to make the determination (ignoring the likelihood that the kid will find a way to get the game by some other means).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
all major retailers follow the ESRB guidelines pretty fiercely, I had a college buddy get fired from Best Buy for selling a game to a kid and have heard some stories from gamestop employeees about the company sending in "secret shoppers" to try and buy games they were not old enough for, apparently (citation needed) gamestop will even go so far as to strip franchise rights from a privately owned franchise for violating ESRB guidelines.
The point is there is a system in place that works. Well it works if parents take an interest in wtf their kids are doing.
You know what the difference between a video game and a porno mag is, you need to be on the TV to play games. If you have a young child shouldn't you look at what he is playing, maybe even play with him? At least look at the box and see the rating (assuming he found someone else to buy it or a small time shop that doesnt care about the ESRB [maybe that gamestop that lost their franchise]) and all the info that little box gives you.
If your child is so young and impressionable maybe you should see wtf he is doing. If he is such a sneaky shit that he will buy it and hide it from you maybe make him set up the xbox in the family room so you can always walk in and see whats up, or again hang out and play with him/watch what he is doing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> their parents allow.
No, between a child and the goverment, the child has *full* 1st Amendment rights. The parent can then override them if they so choose.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
And before I forget, whose 1st Amendment right is being attacked by the law in question? It doesn't stop such games from being made or sold to the general public. The games still get out there.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> is being attacked by the law in question?
The childrens' rights. As Scalia pointed out, children have the same right to be free from government censorship as any other citizen. So the government can't pass a law censoring video games from them, even thought their parents can.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
Nice theory. I'll look forward to hearing the evidence supporting it. I'm glad you at least admit that this isn't a constitutional right (and I'll remind you that free speech is).
Isn't protecting children from this type of "harm" really the parents' job?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> to control the child's access?
Perhaps, but that's a matter between the parent and the business. It's not the proper place of government to enforce internal family rules for people.
> shouldn't it be the government's job to help
> protect the rights of said parents?
No, not really. If people want to be parents, they take on the responsibility of all parenthood entails. They're not entitled to co-opt the resources of the rest of us (in the form of tax dollars) to help them out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
For the second...wouldn't that be nice, if parents actually took on the full responsibility of parenting? I agree that they shouldn't be using everyone else's resources to raise their kids (or so many other things); but that isn't happening, and hasn't been for far too long.
It's probably just me, but that's another big reason I'd like to see such tools added...eventually, such parents are going to run out of excuses, and maybe then we can see more parental responsibility.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
> definitely the role of the government to intervene;
> that's the primary role of government, to protect people
> from each other
Not in that sense it isn't. Just the opposite, in fact. When two private parties interact with one another, it's the proper place of government to stay out of the way to the highest degree possible.
If a parent doesn't like it that Blockbuster is interfering with her right to parent by renting games to her kid, then she can express her concerns to management and if they're not addressed, she can decline to do business with them.
Simple.
What we don't need (and which is constitutionally prohibited) are grand-standing politicians poking their collective noses into that process and passing laws to criminally enforce what amounts to nothing more than personal preferences within families.
> wouldn't that be nice, if parents actually took on the full
> responsibility of parenting?
Sure would. But regardless of whether they do or not, the Constitution remains the same. There's no "unless parents aren't doing their job" exception to the 1st Amendment.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
What if a store sells candy to a child against the parents wishes?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
So, no.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Re:
"The law" is the government preventing the child from making the purchase, not the parent.
it doesn't prevent a parent from making that purchase on the child's behalf.
Nobody here said it did.
...a child only has the 1st Amendment rights that their parents allow.
You can keep repeating that as much as you wish, but the Supreme Court has now ruled otherwise. If a parent wishes to restrict their child's games, they are still free to do so.
Laws such as this provide another tool for parents to control what their kids see or do; they don't stop the production or sale of such items in general.
Laws don't have to be "in general" or apply to *everyone* to be unconstitutional. Laws aimed at only certain groups can be unconstitutional. I find it hard to believe that you can't understand that.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Just because he has a different viewpoint, he might not even have it he might just be experimenting with it, doesn't mean you have to jump down his throat.
Wait for him to be rude then you can start smacking him in the ear with your cocks
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Then where do you draw the line?
Where is the line of acceptable and unacceptable violence? I've seen saturday morning cartoons from the fifties that were violent. Should those count?
Who now is the 'decider' of what content is acceptable?
Think of the children!
Why stop with video games?
Can you show any reason why violent {movies | books | posters} are a benefit to children?
Laws to regulate these should also be constitutional.
Next, why limit to violence. Maybe all sexual content should be 'regulated' or censored? After all, we don't want people under 18 to know anything about how their own bodies work.
What about offensive comments? Shouldn't legislators be allowed to pass laws?
What about making ugly faces at other people?
What about thinking wrong thoughts, or speaking wrong things?
None of these things are a benefit to children.
Now here's a very different idea. How about lets NOT allow legislators to decide these for us, and let us handle it ourselves.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
When he is at his mothers house, he doesn't play "violent video games". But he gets into fights with other kids more then usual.
When he is over my house, I let him play Team Fortress 2 (with the blood off, balloons turned on, etc). We play as a team against the bots and password protect the server so that no one outside of me or him (or whoever I invite on) can join us and be rude.
He is calm, relaxed and not at all the stressed ball I get to see when it's my turn to be with him.
Now, GTA4 of course is out. I have let him play GTA3 (with the voices turned off and under strict supervision), but only to drive fire trucks and put out fires, save people in ambulances and to catch criminals in cop cars (cheat codes to remove the stars for stealing it of course).
So there ya go. A reason why they are good. Now, I won't say not having them would damage his development, but it is helping.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Parenting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Parenting
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Parenting
But for my Son, his "Gateway" game was Minecraft (and he still plays it) as well as Terraina. Both excellent games that are exciting and imangination filled, but no real serious violence (and both can do multiplayer and are cheap).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: WTF?
> games are a benefit to children? Can you show
> any reason that controlling them and making
> them 18+ would somehow damage a child's
> development?
Huh?
Ice cream is of no real benefit to children, either. Controlling it and restricting it to 18+ also wouldn't damage a child's development. But no one in their right mind would advocate banning children from having an ice cream cone.
The idea that every product has to affirmatively prove that it is beneficial to children before it can be sold them is idiotic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: WTF?
Do we really need government controlling yet another aspect of our lives?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Can you show any reason why violent books are a benefit to children? Why not ban selling books contains violence? MANY children read violent books. Harry Potter, Grimms Fairy Tales, and of course... the Bible.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Get that through your skull.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Quote:
Source: Computer games 'do have benefits'
Quote:
Source: 10 Benefits of Video Games
Your turn, please show us the studies saying the contrary.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
the difference here is that its my job to be the parent... not the states job. i do not want nor do i need a governmental agency telling me how i should raise my kids when it comes to an issue such as video games.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
No? Then why object?"
Following your logic here: Can you show any reason why Scolding Children, Condoms, Vitamins, Clothing, Shoes, Bathing, or Set Bed Times are a befit to children? Can you show any reason that controlling them and making them 18+ would somehow damage a child's development?
No? Then why object?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Q.E. Fucking D.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Easy. Because you want something forbidden, YOU gotta show justification.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Doesn't matter. Yee is crazy. Away with Yee....
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I've suggested this idea before . . .
Any legislator who writes a law that is later found to be unconstitutional is automatically removed from office.
After all, if lawmakers can't be expected to know the law, or even more basically the constitution, then who can?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've suggested this idea before . . .
Let me add though.
Part time legislature and
the murder of all Union heads.
Then we can get close to a reasonable state.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've suggested this idea before . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've suggested this idea before . . .
Any legislator who writes a law that is later found to be unconstitutional is automatically removed from office, placed in jail, and all campaign contributors fined.
FTFY
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I've suggested this idea before . . .
For just one example, consider that if a law like this existed, President Obama would have to be impeached because U.S. District Court Judge Roger Vinson ruled his health care bill unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: I've suggested this idea before . . .
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Here's a law we really need...
If the US Constitution is the supreme law of the land, then there need to be criminal penalties for those politicians who conspire to violate it. On the civil side, the politicians who voted for such laws should be required to reimburse the taxpayers for the legal costs. That would likely end them voting for all these obviously unconstitutional laws in the first place.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a law we really need...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Here's a law we really need...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
WON'T SOMEBODY PLEASE THINK OF THE CHILDREN
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
The games are too violent. Banning violent games is constitutional. California has the right to ban games.
CA should cede from the US and become it's own republic.
Why no revival? Is there no revival?
Our churches are empty because of Facebook.
We need revival and we need it now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
That's even more disturbing...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
"Will somebody please think of the Children", Fish, Puppies, Rabbits, lizards, and anything else you are not buying to eat.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Fth
But, don't worry, there will likely always be a few people who want the mental crutch of believing in only one thing which they believe they need never justify, so the churches will always have a few followers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fth
Hmm, that sounds like "magical thinking and ignorant belief".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fth
It's more like the scientific method and observation.
People are beginning to question everything. They are beginning to realize that everyone else is beginning to question everything also. In a world of instant communications, to think otherwise is really stupid.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re: Fth
American churches are not, in fact, empty. Arguing about why they are empty is like arguing about why dogs meow.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Fth
"A fool says in his heart 'there is no god'" - Hebrews 9:27.
Believing in Jesus isn't magical thinking or ignorant belief, it's a relationship. I will never bring a few people to Jesus. More people will come to Jesus. If the faith should be penalized by death then let it be. I will never reject my savior and start thinking for myself.
If anyone tells others to stop believing in a Savior who died for their sins and start thinking for themselves, that person is leading the Lord's lost sheep on a path of destruction. I will help the Lord rescue His Lost Sheep.
California has the right to ban violent games, the violent game ban is constitutional. Think of the children
Mrs. Lovejoy: Will somebody please think of the children.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Fth
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Does this prove my theory that organized religion is more of a social establishment, rather than a spiritual one?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Sorry to break it to you, but SCOTUS disagrees. You may have more authority though, with the God thing and all...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
i am thinking of the children. specifically mine not having to wake up every morning in a totalitarian regime.
if the games are too violent dont play them and dont let yours play them.
there are no states that are going anywhere and i wish people would just drop the idiotic idea.
revival? now your on a religious bent apparently.. and we need it not now and not ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Needs help?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Needs help?
In my industry we have a name for them too, but usually we just call them customers.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need to Kill
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Need to Kill
I played Pacman and I was filled with an overwhelming urge to eat up everything in sight.
Then playing Donkey Kong filled me with the urge to jump over barrels and climb ladders until I lost all the weight I gained from Pacman.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
And just in case it wasn't OBVIOUS, I'm being sarcastic.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
California State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco)
That says it all really. Democrat, California, and above all that, a State Senator (read: politician.)
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
TV is dangerous
Beyond that, I haven't done anything that was influenced by TV, movies, books or video-games. I may have learned new perspectives and ways of looking at the world, but such positives are ignored by the likes of this politician. I don't blow myself up with dynamite like Bugs Bunny and the rest, thinking I'll be unharmed in the next scene. I don't rob cars like Grand Theft Auto. I don't throw Pokeballs at random animals. I don't stomp on the heads of my enemies, like Mario. I don't play Doom or Quake or Duke Nukem and somehow, have the point and click experience translate into holding an actual gun in real life (yes, that's what Jack Thompson was arguing, that the Columbine killers trained for their killing spree in Doom).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While I understand that there is no evidence, I do believe, after spending years and years playing games myself (avid gamer) and with my children, that violence in media can have an effect on impressionable minds.
It is, however, up to me as a parent to restrict that from my children NOT the government. All game systems now, dvd players, tv boxes, computers, they have the ability for me to block the content I find objectionable. Sure, my kids can go somewhere else and possibly see it and that is a risk we all take, but that is another part of being active in your child's life. Knowing where they are, who they are with, if the other child's parents are home with them.
I am tired of these politicians pandering to people who want someone else to take care of their kids.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Movie Ratings
Be glad to.
> If the video game ban is unconstitutional,
> then shouldn't movie ratings be as such too?
Nope. Movie ratings are not based in law. There's no law (state or federal) which requires theaters to abide by the movie ratings system. It's not illegal to let a 14-year-old into an R-rated movie.
The ratings system is voluntary on the part of theaters. They choose to abide by it, but they don't have to. If the government were to pass a law tomorrow that made it a crime to fail to abide by the rating system, it would be just as unconstitutional as the video game law was found to be.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Movie ratings are entirely a voluntary system by the MPAA (much like the ESRB system for games). There is no law concerning movie ratings, because (like this law) it would be struck down as unconstitutional.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
The funny thing is how parents choose to apply it. In the UK, my parents wouldn't let me see "Alien" at the age of 16 (on TV, even). And yet, I had been allowed to watch "Apocalypse Now" at the cinema at the age of 12... because we were in Yugoslavia and there didn't seem to be any serious rating system back then!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
And it couldn't be better for us
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Protecting Our Children?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
So it's not the job of Burger King to follow your parenting rules if your kid goes by himself to one of their food places and orders a Whopper.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
hrm...
What's funny is that it's usually parents who buy egregiously violent videogames for their kids against the recommendations of the salesfolk.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Costs?
Are not parents in California allowed to look at their children's games and decide if they are not appropriate? Why does the government need to be involved?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A hypothetical
Which do you think would have a greater impact on kids and violence?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Because that's how he got his Senate seat in the first place? You stick with what's worked for you in the past.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]