Schwarzenegger and Yee Unapologetic for Failed Supreme Court Battle

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

Schwarzenegger and Yee Unapologetic for Failed Supreme Court Battle

State Senator Leland Yee
State Senator Leland Yee

The law banning sale of violent games to minors in California ended up costing $1.8 million but the law's makers don't care.

We all rejoiced when the Supreme Court struck down the law proposed by then State Representative Leland Yee which would impose a $1,000 to any retailer in California which sold a violent game to a minor. The landmark victory cemented videogames as free speech that can't be regulated based on content. The taxpayers of California have to foot the bill for the legal costs associated with defended the law - which will total $1.8 million when you factor in $500,000 of the state Attorney General office's own man-hours - but Yee and those in former Governor Schwarzenegger's inner circle are not sorry for pushing the law forward to the highest court in the land, despite legal counsel that it would never be upheld and the fact that two lesser courts had already overturned the law. Those involved believe they were justified in spending California's money during the financial crisis of 2009.

"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.

The decision to appeal the District Court's ruling and bring this case before the Supreme Court ultimately landed on the Governator's desk. "It was an important issue to the governor," said one of Schwarzenegger's legal advisers, Andrea Hoch. "It was something he felt strongly about."

"I think we felt the issue was so important that it warranted the costs associated with it," said Jim Humes for the Attorney General at the time, Jerry Brown. Brown is the current governor of California.

These individuals felt their crusade to deprive young children of violent games was worth $1.8 million. What do you think? Was it worth it?

Source: Sacramento Bee

Permalink

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.

On the one hand I actually do support that law. I think that selling R18 items to minors should result in government punishment.
However as they were already told it would not pass and as it had already been shot down twice already they were just wasting tax payer money so should be forced to foot the bill themselves.
Fuckers get paid more than enough as it is.

Fappy:
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.

Bad fath bullshit, too, since they knew it was unlikely to be smiled upon by the Supreme Court.

Greg Tito:
-failing at censorship-

Like a champ.

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.

Sure, it's worth that amount of money. If they offered to pay it themselves, that is. If they seriously expect the American people to pay, then they can go rot in hell.

No its cool. Its not like they had to spend money on the economy or on the failing infrastructure or on job creation or on the major blow just taken on the citrus industry from unstable weather or on the protection of endangered species.

nope.

Sure, they may think it's all fine and dandy but I'm betting the taxpayers of California don't think so.

"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.

No, Mr. Yee it isn't your responsibility. It's the responsibility of the dumbass parents who can't be bothered to know what their children are playing. They'd rather have all "inappropriate" games banned than take 20 seconds to look at the back of a game box and see what its rated and what content is in it.
Look I get it, being a parent is a hard goddamn job, but do you really want the government to do that job for you? Would you next like them to start enforcing a nationally mandated bedtime for all people under 18?

And now because you had to "protect" the people who were too stupid to do their jobs as parents, the entire state of California has to pay for it.

Way to go.

RatRace123:
Sure, they may think it's all fine and dandy but I'm betting the taxpayers of California don't think so.

"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.

No, Mr. Yee it isn't your responsibility. It's the responsibility of the dumbass parents who can't be bothered to know what their children are playing. They'd rather have all "inappropriate" games banned than take 20 seconds to look at the back of a game box and see what its rated and what content is in it.
Look I get it, being a parent is a hard goddamn job, but do you really want the government to do that job for you? Would you next like them to start enforcing a nationally mandated bedtime for all people under 18?

And now because you had to "protect" the people who were too stupid to do their jobs as parents, the entire state of California has to pay for it.

Way to go.

WHY CAN'T I LIKE COMMENTS LIKE THIS PURE AWESOME ONE HERE!!!

Sucks I'm moving there soon.

Greg Tito:
These individuals felt their crusade to deprive young children of violent games was worth $1.8 million. What do you think? Was it worth it?

Lets see...

Short Answer: NO!

Long Answer: NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!

Explanation: Current system is excellent, their idea could possibly have destroyed a medium that makes millions and is a major form of entertainment and art, gained them little politically, for multiple reasons, and cost them almost 2 million in a down economy, some of which is going to pay for the EMA's legal fees.

To Wrap Up: Whole saga should probably be branded with the Escapist's "Officially Certified A Bad Idea" Badge.

I still don't get what was so wrong with that Bill, I mean, let's say we have a movie, Commando for example, should we let 10 year olds buy and watch that? (admittedly I don't think it would cause any damage but whatever). Why is it any different if it involves games?

I don't know, in the UK retailers can't sell R18 games or films to minors (not that that stops them from playing/seeing them) and we aren't artistically bankrupt. But I don't know how it works in America. Do you let 12 year-olds go to the cinema and watch the latest Saw movie?

That was a laughable waste of money though, no argument here.

...really?....they're still trying to defend this?....seriously?....in regard to the cost I'm in agreement with what I assume is the general concensus, if it was that damn important to them there was no reason they couldn't pay for it themselves

also

RatRace123:
Sure, they may think it's all fine and dandy but I'm betting the taxpayers of California don't think so.

"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.

No, Mr. Yee it isn't your responsibility. It's the responsibility of the dumbass parents who can't be bothered to know what their children are playing. They'd rather have all "inappropriate" games banned than take 20 seconds to look at the back of a game box and see what its rated and what content is in it.
Look I get it, being a parent is a hard goddamn job, but do you really want the government to do that job for you? Would you next like them to start enforcing a nationally mandated bedtime for all people under 18?

And now because you had to "protect" the people who were too stupid to do their jobs as parents, the entire state of California has to pay for it.

Way to go.

this

State Senator Leland Yee
State Senator Leland Yee
George 'Sulu' Takei
George 'Sulu' Takei

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?

"It was an important issue to the governor," said one of Schwarzenegger's legal advisers, Andrea Hoch. "It was something he felt strongly about."

My god woman that statement hurt my brain.

Bobic:
I don't know, in the UK retailers can't sell R18 games or films to minors (not that that stops them from playing/seeing them) and we aren't artistically bankrupt. But I don't know how it works in America. Do you let 12 year-olds go to the cinema and watch the latest Saw movie?

The theaters (and retailers) self-regulate, and the ratings boards are industry bodies. It works so well that a lot of people actually think it is legally enforced.

The problem with the law (besides the opinion that it simply isn't the government's place to regulate speech) is that no other form of media is subject to such legislation, and singling out video games would be effectively declaring that freedom of speech doesn't apply to them.

The_root_of_all_evil:
*snip*

I think you might just be a bit racist.

Aidinthel:
I think you might just be a bit racist.

Comparing a Californian born to Japanese parents, to a Chinese man who moved to California?

That's really not racism.

Look at their poise, their haircut, their eyebrows, their hair colour...

RatRace123:
Sure, they may think it's all fine and dandy but I'm betting the taxpayers of California don't think so.

"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.

No, Mr. Yee it isn't your responsibility. It's the responsibility of the dumbass parents who can't be bothered to know what their children are playing. They'd rather have all "inappropriate" games banned than take 20 seconds to look at the back of a game box and see what its rated and what content is in it.
Look I get it, being a parent is a hard goddamn job, but do you really want the government to do that job for you? Would you next like them to start enforcing a nationally mandated bedtime for all people under 18?

And now because you had to "protect" the people who were too stupid to do their jobs as parents, the entire state of California has to pay for it.

Way to go.

considering that most people have kids in a world where there is a Teen Mom 2 show, I think the issue of being a parent is too hard isn't right.

I think he was making the point that parents are incompetent and the only people that can look out for children is the Government.

Still though, spending 1.8 million on an censorship law is beyond retarded when your state is having to release convicts and reduce school budgets just to save money.

Fucking California, why did we let it become a state again?

Aidinthel:

Bobic:
I don't know, in the UK retailers can't sell R18 games or films to minors (not that that stops them from playing/seeing them) and we aren't artistically bankrupt. But I don't know how it works in America. Do you let 12 year-olds go to the cinema and watch the latest Saw movie?

The theaters (and retailers) self-regulate, and the ratings boards are industry bodies. It works so well that a lot of people actually think it is legally enforced.

The problem with the law (besides the opinion that it simply isn't the government's place to regulate speech) is that no other form of media is subject to such legislation, and singling out video games would be effectively declaring that freedom of speech doesn't apply to them.

I don't see where free speech comes into it. They aren't saying 'you aren't allowed to swear and depict graphic events' they're saying 'kids aren't allowed to hear swears and see graphic events'. Sure, it's unfair to single out games, but crying out 'freedom of speech!' is just deliberately sensationalist, just like all the cries of Freedom and Communism that American's are parodied for.

If memory serves, I had to pull out proof when I bought New Vegas at Gamestop. When I was 16, I was at Walmart with Granny and she had to OK it with the clerk before I could buy Oblivion. I'm pretty sure that law was fairly pointless. Then again, I may be missing bits *shrug*

Bobic:
I don't see where free speech comes into it.

The government is not allowed to decide what media its citizens consume. It would set a dangerous precedent that could easily lead to more such restrictions for every new moral panic.

Why do so many believe that when they say "it's for the children", everything is justified?

Aidinthel:

Bobic:
I don't see where free speech comes into it.

The government is not allowed to decide what media its citizens consume. It would set a dangerous precedent that could easily lead to more such restrictions for every new moral panic.

It's not all citizens though, it's minors. And people are pretty much in universal agreement that children shouldn't see things that are rated as unsuitable for kids. That's why the rating exists. And you said yourself that a lot of people think those things are legally enforced, would it really make that much difference if they were?

Bobic:
It's not all citizens though, it's minors. And people are pretty much in universal agreement that children shouldn't see things that are rated as unsuitable for kids. That's why the rating exists. And you said yourself that a lot of people think those things are legally enforced, would it really make that much difference if they were?

It's the principle of the thing. This really comes down to a fundamental question of the proper role of government, and I just don't think it has any place in people's personal lives.

This law wouldn't make much difference, but I don't like where the mindset behind it would lead.

Aidinthel:

Bobic:
It's not all citizens though, it's minors. And people are pretty much in universal agreement that children shouldn't see things that are rated as unsuitable for kids. That's why the rating exists. And you said yourself that a lot of people think those things are legally enforced, would it really make that much difference if they were?

It's the principle of the thing. This really comes down to a fundamental question of the proper role of government, and I just don't think it has any place in people's personal lives.

This law wouldn't make much difference, but I don't like where the mindset behind it would lead.

Just like how free healthcare leads to a communist regime I suppose.

Of course they don't care ITS NOT THEIR MONEY!!!

Buddy, if Thomas and Breyer are the only dissenters who are in favor of what you said, you need to take a long, hard look at yourself in the mirror.

So I think it was a waste of money.

Bobic:
Just like how free healthcare leads to a communist regime I suppose.

Please don't put words in my mouth; it's hardly constructive.

Since you bring it up, I would make a critical distinction between physical wellbeing (which has obvious, universal standards) and an abstract, personal moral choice like what children should be allowed to watch/play/read. The government does have a measure of responsibility for the former, but not the latter.

And thus petty deluded bureaucrats continue to eat away at the American economy. Bravo, you troglodytes. Brav-fucking-o.

Don't get me wrong, I can see where they're coming from, and I can see why they would feel strongly about the issue. However flawed I may feel their argument or reasoning is, bottom line is that they want to protect kids. But is that worth 1.8 million that could have gone to any number of more important and deserving things in a state that has an insane debt problem? Not at all. Not even close.

I'm a little conflicted over this. Part of me agrees that if these people thought they had a legitimate concern, then they should have pursued it. However, if they had been shot down in two previous courts and their legal counsel advised otherwise, that shows negligence of a leader when it comes to listening to sound advice.

On the plus side, the this sad attempt at legislating games has created a court precedent for video games as a medium of speech. I kinda look at this like the same as the debacle with Jack Thompson and video game violence. Inept vilification has only strengthened and legitimized the medium.

Aidinthel:

Bobic:
Just like how free healthcare leads to a communist regime I suppose.

Please don't put words in my mouth; it's hardly constructive.

Since you bring it up, I would make a critical distinction between physical wellbeing (which has obvious, universal standards) and an abstract, personal moral choice like what children should be allowed to watch/play/read. The government does have a measure of responsibility for the former, but not the latter.

I wasn't putting words in your mouth, I was making a comparison, don't put intentions in mine.

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?

Bobic:
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.

Aidinthel:

Bobic:
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.

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?

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

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here