Schwarzenegger and Yee Unapologetic for Failed Supreme Court Battle

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

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

I'm so glad Arnold "has killed more people on screen than the Ebola virus has killed in real life" Schwarzenegger is concerned about violence in video games. That takes chutzpah, no doubt about it.

Yee? [sigh] It's hard to believe someone would be this mule-headed on a subject unless they were, indeed, a true believer. It's hard to hold someone wanting to protect children against them. But the assumption that there's nothing between children and violent video games unless the state steps in is so incorrect on so many levels, not to mention suggesting elements of a kind of reflexive Luddite-ism.

It was only worth it if they don't try again. What are the chances?

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.

Sad part is, most retailers already have policies against selling MA games to minors as it stands.

And if this law went through, who would stop the 'government' from fining retailers, when they very clearly sold it to an adult, who then gave it to the child?
If they make such a law, then it should be equally 'illegal' to give said 'content' to minors.
Much akin to buying pornography to minors or booze.

That said... wtf are they complaining since most retailers already 'restrict it' without government regulation?
Add a fine? You'll kill MA games in retailers, and only promote online distribution.

Make them foot the bill and then we'll see how quickly they try that kind of thing again. Hell, we'll see how fast any politican trys that kind of bill again. There's an idea. Make it so that those in the government that try to create these types of laws which have to go to court have to personally pay the bills for the case if they lose. I think that'd make things a lot better.

Frankly, this is just them trying to cover their asses. And using the 'we don't feel bad about trying to protect kids' excuse doesn't help. When it's pretty obvious the law won't be considered legal and there isn't any solid evidence that these things cause problems, then that excuse falls flat pretty quick. I really hope Yee isn't re-elected anytime soon.

As a Californian I'm not surprised that they don't care. Seriously I don't know anyone who actually thinks Schwarzenegger was actually a good governor with how much he has screwed the people of California.

RatRace123:
Would you next like them to start enforcing a nationally mandated bedtime for all people under 18?

Believe it or not we actually do have that in my city: Chula Vista. It is in Southern California and what the law is is that all persons under the age of 18 can't be out alone unless they are accompanied with someone 25 or older. Surprisingly it works very well.

Aidinthel:

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.

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.

The_root_of_all_evil:

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?

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.

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.

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.

Bobic:
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.

RaNDM G:
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.

Aidinthel:

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.

Aidinthel:

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, bitch should be able to swear whenever he wants to, they're just words afterall.

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.

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......

Bobic:
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.

uh, yeah let me just...

that is all there is to say.

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.

Bobic:
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, bitch 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.

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

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

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.

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?

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

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

PureIrony:
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)

"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?

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.'

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.

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.

Did anyone else notice the irony of a governor who thanks his movie career and election to movies with extreme violent content, wanting to ban games with much less violent content?

Can't we just deport the idiots to North Korea? As I recall they already have the sort of legislation they want and minors there aren't exposed to violent videogames.

So, let me get this straight.

The Governator, made famous by films such as Conan the Barbarian and The Terminator is now worried kids might be corrupted by violent media?

Hahahahahahahaha, priceless!

I'm pretty sure in the UK you get fined like that for selling games to people under-age, just like with alcohol. What's the big deal?

Law makers don't care when they spend money that isn't coming out of their pocket? Who would have thought...

Bobic:
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.

It is because in the US all media is self regulated. Movies, music, television, books, and video games are self regulated. In fact, the video game industry already has the highest success rate for it's regulation of any media. It is easier to get into an R rated movie as a minor than it is to buy a M video game.

By making video games a government regulated industry it would put them into the same category as guns, alcohol, tobacco, and pornography.

Bobic:

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?

Video games are already the best regulated media industry. It is easier for a minor to get into an R rated movie than it is to get a M rated game. Hell, in many cases it is easier for a minor to buy alcohol (which is regulated by the government and carries stiff penalties) than it is to buy a M game.

Yee:
"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.

How is that the state's responsibility? Are government employees nannies now too?
Are we going to extend Social Services' jurisdiction to include "violent" video games?

Why not; that's the kind of precedent you're setting here when you make it the STATE'S responsibility to "protect kids" in this manner.

I really think laws like these are pointless because there are too many ways to go around it. And besides, it's not the government's job to tell kids what they can and can't play. It's their parents' job, and I really don't wanna think American parents are stupid enough to get House Of the Dead Overkill to a 8 year old.

Then again, my father got me Conker's Bad Fur Day when I was 13 despite the big freaking M in the box and "Absolutely not for kids" in bright red letters on a yellow background, so yeeaaaaaaah...

Did I miss something? Aren't the Republican types (i.e. Ah-nuld and company) supposed to be all about small government/lower spending/don't tell me what to teach mah chilluns/pry my gun from my cold dead hands stuff? And now they're talking about how spending more to increase government regulation to take away rights from parents was a good idea...

This is almost as ridiculous as Newt Gingrich talking about moon bases in eight years.

The_root_of_all_evil:

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?

They look nothing alike. Not when you look closer and see beyond the "asian" factor. It's just a case of that good old fashioned "all X look the same!"

 Pages PREV 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