Schwarzenegger and Yee Unapologetic for Failed Supreme Court Battle

[Bobic]

And wouldn't it be significantly easier for the parent to regulate if little billy couldn't go out and purchase grand theft auto of his own free accord?

Where is a kid getting $60 that his parents aren't aware of? Where is he playing that his parents can't check on him? A lot of things about parenting would be easier if someone else did them, but that doesn't mean someone should.

Let's say this kid did buy the game (he doesn't have to buy things brand new for $60, there are bargain bins and the like), are his parents meant to watch him throughout his playtime? I spent a lot of time as a kid gaming, sure my parents would check up on me from time to time but they wouldn't watch what I was playing long enough to gain too much detail from it, sure high profile games like GTA wouldn't slip by, but some lesser known, less obvious games could easily be played without parents knowing, at least for a while.

Anyway, we're getting sidetracked and it's bedtime. So I'll just swap to a different question, do you think the internet would have gotten anywhere near as riled up if the law included movies as well? Because I seriously doubt it would have. This was never about free speech. It was about gaming being targeted, and nothing gets the internet more riled up than people treating games differently.

 

[samsonguy920]

Considering California's countless other failures to do something significant beyond whore itself to the entertainment industry, which this bill was doing zero favors, I can hardly feel anything about this. I would feel sorry for that state, but its GDP rivals that of many independent countries, and yet they still throw their money away to remain in bankruptcy. I once heard a joke from a friend that the only time you see construction workers is for like one day a month when they get their one bit of income for their budget. I'm not so sure it was a joke.
If this law had been passed, Arnie and Yee would have got to spend a day of publicity standing at the border, shaking hands with and waving at all the gaming companies leaving. They weren't about to stay in a state where they could watch their sales tank.

It's not just me seeing this, is it?

Maybe this is the new plot for Star Trek 2, where the Binars have come to Earth to enslave us with their video games?

What the actual hell?
Seriously Root, you just set in parallel one of the most upstanding people of our time with a money-wasting moron of a politician.
I'm not sure what your point is supposed to be, but you best edge off where you are going.

 

[Aidinthel]

Let's say this kid did buy the game (he doesn't have to buy things brand new for $60, there are bargain bins and the like), are his parents meant to watch him throughout his playtime? I spent a lot of time as a kid gaming, sure my parents would check up on me from time to time but they wouldn't watch what I was playing long enough to gain too much detail from it, sure high profile games like GTA wouldn't slip by, but some lesser known, less obvious games could easily be played without parents knowing, at least for a while.

That's why the ratings exist in the first place, and why the boxes state why the game was given that rating, and why the ESRB website has even further details. It's the parents' responsibility to do this research and judge for themselves precisely what their kid can handle.

Anyway, we're getting sidetracked and it's bedtime. So I'll just swap to a different question, do you think the internet would have gotten anywhere near as riled up if the law included movies as well? Because I seriously doubt it would have. This was never about free speech. It was about gaming being targeted, and nothing gets the internet more riled up than people treating games differently.

But games being targeted is the free speech issue, because declaring them an entirely separate category of speech in need of regulation would have stripped them of First Amendment protection, placing the entire medium on the same level as porn in the eyes of the government. And regardless of whether people would have been as angry, the law would have been just as wrong unless it applied equally to music, books, comics, radio, etc. No particular medium is any more damaging than any other, and none deserve to be singled out.

Of course, even if it did apply said equal standards to everything, I'd still oppose it on the basis of this being none of the government's business, but it would at least be less wrong.

 

[fractured_sanity]

Anyway, we're getting sidetracked and it's bedtime. So I'll just swap to a different question, do you think the internet would have gotten anywhere near as riled up if the law included movies as well? Because I seriously doubt it would have. This was never about free speech. It was about gaming being targeted, and nothing gets the internet more riled up than people treating games differently.

I can guarantee it would have had the same uproar or more. It is a freedom issue and dismissing it is just ignorance.

 

[ph0b0s123]

If you think about it, $1.8 million barely makes a dent in the billions of dollars of debt we're already sunk in.

Tell that to the people who are going to have their public services cut, etc. It may be a fraction of the debt, but the people who will now suffer due to that debt, I doubt they think wasting that money was worth it.

 

[Bobic]

Let's say this kid did buy the game (he doesn't have to buy things brand new for $60, there are bargain bins and the like), are his parents meant to watch him throughout his playtime? I spent a lot of time as a kid gaming, sure my parents would check up on me from time to time but they wouldn't watch what I was playing long enough to gain too much detail from it, sure high profile games like GTA wouldn't slip by, but some lesser known, less obvious games could easily be played without parents knowing, at least for a while.

That's why the ratings exist in the first place, and why the boxes state why the game was given that rating, and why the ESRB website has even further details. It's the parents' responsibility to do this research and judge for themselves precisely what their kid can handle.

And if buying was restricted to just the parents then they'd better be able to control what the kid plays, that's my point.

Anyway, we're getting sidetracked and it's bedtime. So I'll just swap to a different question, do you think the internet would have gotten anywhere near as riled up if the law included movies as well? Because I seriously doubt it would have. This was never about free speech. It was about gaming being targeted, and nothing gets the internet more riled up than people treating games differently.

But games being targeted is the free speech issue, because declaring them an entirely separate category of speech in need of regulation would have stripped them of First Amendment protection, placing the entire medium on the same level as porn in the eyes of the government. And regardless of whether people would have been as angry, the law would have been just as wrong unless it applied equally to music, books, comics, radio, etc. No particular medium is any more damaging than any other, and none deserve to be singled out.

Of course, even if it did apply said equal standards to everything, I'd still oppose it on the basis of this being none of the government's business, but it would at least be less wrong.

And I still don't see why it's so freedom of speechy when it's just about what minors can purchase. Are you against Watershed times on the TV? Because I am, ***** should be able to swear whenever he wants to, they're just words afterall.

 

[Imp_Emissary]

This is just another fine example of idealism getting in the way of rational thought. Seriously, state governments (much less California's) do not have the money to throw around like this. Welcome to the US, where we elect people to waste our money on bullshit.

Well, on the bright side they did pretty much pay 1.8 million dollars to insure that they will never succeed in trying to add on more regulations to the games industry.

At least at the end no one tried to say that pizza sauce was a vegetable!

Not that time anyway......

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

And I still don't see why it's so freedom of speechy when it's just about what minors can purchase.

It is not about what minors can purchase- not from a legalistic viewpoint. It's about the government's power to regulate speech. Calling it not a free speech issue is not accurate according to the Supreme Court of the United States. The law would have punished retailers, not minors, so this is hardly a particularly nuanced point to make.

You may, however, feel the the government should regulate speech in a particular instance. That is a conversation we can have, but it is a different conversation.

EDIT: Also, regarding your comment about health care and communism, I want to point out that the 'slippery slope' is only a fallacy when it is fallacious. Regulating speech in video games would establish a precedent for regulating speech which would certainly be argued in other court cases. Surely we can agree on that much. And I don't see how that argument applied to other mediums, once the precedent is established, could be denied.

 

[draythefingerless]

uh, yeah let me just...


that is all there is to say.

 

[Baresark]

I can't help but feel this is a moot point. I know major game retailers ID check for game ratings. It was a pain the balls back when they first introduced the game rating system when I was in high school.

These guys will never be sorry and here is why: When a person is elected to a public position it is a signal for them that what they want goes, even if it doesn't. They are given the social nod to pursue whatever agenda their little hearts desire. So video games, Abortion (for and against), gay marriage, war, taxation, etc. That is the danger of electing officials for one or two issues when they should all count. It was the same thing for Bush, and then Obama, and of course it was in full swing when Arnold and that little fascist half man Leeland Yee were elected.

 

[Aidinthel]

And if buying was restricted to just the parents then they'd better be able to control what the kid plays, that's my point.

But my point is that they already have all the tools they need, and if they're too lazy it isn't the government's responsibility to do it for them.

I still don't see why it's so freedom of speechy when it's just about what minors can purchase. Are you against Watershed times on the TV? Because I am, ***** should be able to swear whenever he wants to, they're just words afterall.

But it isn't just about what minors can purchase. ANY government regulation would require defining the entire medium as unprotected speech.

 

[Rooster Cogburn]

Here is a PDF of the Court's decision, which includes concurrent and dissenting opinions.

[link]http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf[/link]

 

[ResonanceGames]

It's always about protecting the kids. "How am I going to explain two married men to my kids? How can we legalize pot when THE CHILDREN might see someone smoking it? How can we allow violent video games when THE CHILDREN might play them? How can you possibly show cigarettes in movies when THE CHILDREN might think it's cool after seeing them? THINK OF THE CHILDREN!!"

Maybe if you'd talk to your kids about those things, you'd realize they're people just like you are, and the existence of things you consider "bad" isn't actually going to send them into anaphylactic shock. Stop throwing you kids under the bus just because think of them as idiotic robots who aren't capable of understanding basic human behaviors. Your parental insecurities aren't society's problem.

 

[J Tyran]

What am I missing? This law makes sense to me, punishing the stores that self ages restricted games to under-age teens is a good thing surely?

 

[dobahci]

If only there was a politician who was as dedicated to protecting our children from shitty ill-conceived laws.

 

[jurnag12]

Well actually, no, it's not your responsibility to watch over kids. That's their parents' problem.

 

[Kopikatsu]

I really fucking hate my government.

That's it. I really don't have anything else to say. I really fucking hate everyone who runs the legislation that my country somehow manages to survive off of. That is all.

Just keeping everyone updated.

Except Joe Average is the one who elects these people into office. So don't blame them. Blame Americans as a whole. Because politicians are elected by the people to represent the majority. Since they're still in office after everything they do, they must be doing their job right. (Representing the majority, that is)

 

[Legendsmith]

"I felt it was important that the state take an active role in protecting kids, because that's our responsibility," said Leland Yee, now a State Senator.

Oh, it's the state's responsibility? Not the parent's?

 

[SenseOfTumour]

Just one small thing, aren't Republicans meant to be against 'Big' government, with them 'interfering' in American's lives? You know, with healthcare, and labour laws, and equal rights laws, and all that?

So where does this one fit in?

Surely any American kid who's mowed enough lawns to be able to afford Manhunt (because, for fucks sake, there's no chance of them doing any research and mentioning a relevant game from THIS decade...), he should be allowed to enjoy it right? Then go play with his daddy's collection of 'sports' guns. Because that's all american too, right?

It's like SOPA etc, gets repeatedly knocked down, but because they're just too damned thick to understand the concept of being wrong, they keep on trying, because 'we need to protect the children', and it's not their money anyway.

I'm actually all for ratings and legal penalties for selling unsuitable games to minors, IF the penalties are applied equally to movies.

The sheer gall of going 'Well, we blew $2 million of your taxes on shit that we pretty much knew would have no effect and wouldn't pass, but we need to make a statement to say we're not remotely sorry, and we'd probably do it again, just for giggles.'

 

[TheStatutoryApe]

Anyway, if the government don't regulate what kids see, who should? You said the cinema's self regulate, but why wouldn't they let children watch whatever they want? Wouldn't that lead to more money for them, which is what a business is all about?

Ultimately, it's the parents' responsibility. Theaters have incentive to regulate because their customers want the ratings to be enforced, and anyone ignoring the ratings would lose business very quickly.

These industries are self regulated. Industry organizations that do not want to deal with the government getting involved with their business have introduced the rating systems that we are all familiar with. Businesses (Like theatres, Gamestop, ect) that allow minors access to content they are not supposed to get their hands on based on their rating are punished by the industry and could potentially lose their licensing to do business with the industry. This is basically why the law failed, there is no reason for it because the industry already regulates itself.