Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Calif. Petitions Supreme Court On Violent Video Game Bill

timothy posted more than 5 years ago | from the high-priority-assignment dept.

Censorship 204

eldavojohn writes "You know the drill, violent video game bill struck down because: "We hold that the Act, as presumptively invalid content-based restriction on speech, is subject to strict scrutiny and not the 'variable obscenity' standard from Ginsberg v. New York. Applying strict scrutiny, we hold that the Act violates rights protected by the First Amendment." Well, that didn't satisfy a PhD child psychologist turned Democratic California State Senator named Leland Yee who states in his press release that "California's violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games. I am hopeful that the Supreme Court — which has never heard a case dealing with violent video games — will accept our appeal and assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children. I believe the high court will uphold this law as Constitutional. In fact in Roper v. Simmons, the court agreed we need to treat children differently in the eyes of the law due to brain development." His appeal (in PDF) is here and you can find some industry reactions to the Supreme Court hearing at GamePolitics. Unfortunately Yee seems to be a bit more competent than old Jack Thompson, who is pushing a bill in Louisiana today."

cancel ×

204 comments

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (1, Troll)

ViennaSt (1138481) | more than 5 years ago | (#28031893)

But Michael Moore addressed this with Bowling for Columbine and he was right on. They have violent video games in Japan, yet Japanese teens gun prone to violence. Modify the gun laws.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (5, Insightful)

0racle (667029) | more than 5 years ago | (#28031967)

Yet Canada has more guns per capita then the US, and the same video games but also does not have teens prone to violence.

Maybe there are deeper issues then just 'guns be evil.'

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (2, Informative)

ViennaSt (1138481) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032133)

Wikipedia usually doesn't steer us wrong
US has the most Guns per Resident" [wikipedia.org]

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (2, Informative)

ViennaSt (1138481) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032263)

In more news...
US Sitting at 8th Place with murders by firearms [nationmaster.com] right between Costa Rica and Uruguay.

Repeat after me (5, Insightful)

Hojima (1228978) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032923)

Steering people (yes kids count as people, they are not sub-humans incapable of reasoning) away from the wrong direction gives them no ambition to move towards the right. Quite the contrary, they resist. We all know this because there is a little trait of people that causes illegal things to not "go away". Guns in "gun-less countries" are still there, and underage drinking has not gone the path of the dinosaurs either, we can't expect something as unregulated as video games to take a different route. So what should the government do to take care of this 'catastrophe'? Nothing. That's right boys and girls, it's in fact the job of the people to raise their children. Parents need to go out and take the initiative to buy their kids games that are non-violent that keep their kids preoccupied and away from violent video games. You may say, "how do I manage to find one?" It's called online reviews and talking to game store employees. Now you've run out of excuses. Go out and raise your kids. If you can manage that.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (1)

thearkitex (1420577) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032355)

Except when it does. [irishtimes.com]

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (0, Flamebait)

ViennaSt (1138481) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032433)

Great, you found a micro example of how Wikipedia has failed once. And besides, that's from the Irish Times. Real credible, you know they are drunk when they're writing that stuff?

Do you trust google searches? [google.com]

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (1)

ViennaSt (1138481) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032639)

Did you see the Jameson Liquor Add next to your referenced article? [irishtimes.com] Haha, the Irish Times.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (1)

thearkitex (1420577) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032651)

Would you prefer I get the Washington Post's take on the same event? Face it, Wikipedia is a hell of a lot less trustworthy as an information source than the Irish Times.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032791)

"Wikipedia is a hell of a lot less trustworthy as an information source than the Irish Times."
Citation Needed

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032951)

Citation Needed

This comment is a stub. You can help slashdot by blowing it up.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (2, Insightful)

snowgirl (978879) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032465)

And the List of countries by firearm-related death rate [wikipedia.org] holds that the only country with more firearm homocides than the US, is North Ireland... yeah, where terrorists are bat-shit crazy.

Take this as another example. Australia recently banned guns, and had their firearm homocide rate TRIPLE!!! Yet, they were still well below half of the US firearm homocide rate.

US citizens have a mentality and a culture of "if I don't get caught", and an idea of a lack of responsibility to others. This is what caused the financial meltdown, this is what causes our murder rate to be so high, and this is why we're the only first world nation to not have social healthcare (or maybe we're one of two... has Israel implemented social healthcare yet?)

"Merica" is just too bat-shit crazy individualistic. Who gives a crap about anyone else, as long as I get my guns to shoot people whom I don't like.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032667)

You moron.

Banning guns won't stop people from killing each other (or themselves, as most gun-related deaths are suicides). It will stop people from using guns to kill, but it won't stop the killing.

In fact, by your own admission, it will make the occurances of violent crime worse. Furthermore, it will deprive the non-crazy upstanding gun owners of their ability to defend themselves from the criminals. What good will that accomplish?

What, exactly, are you trying to do here? Save lives, or encourage the use of knives?

Who gives a crap about anyone else, as long as I get my guns to shoot people whom I don't like.

Very nice straw man fallacy. Owning a gun doesn't suddenly make someone selfish or inclined to shoot anyone he doesn't like. You want to punish and harm the overwhelming majority of gun owners because you are afraid of the actions of criminals (who would take those actions even without guns).

You, sir, are a coward.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (0)

ViennaSt (1138481) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032809)

Modifying gun laws does not mean banning guns. Regulating all secondary market sales could help.

"Over twenty states regulate all secondary sales through registration or licensing requirements. In the states that have no such regulation, the secondary market allows minors and criminals to easily obtain weapons. This is the so-called "gun show" loophole."
Quotation from this helpful site on the issue [newsbatch.com]

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (0, Flamebait)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032825)

"Very nice straw man fallacy. Owning a gun doesn't suddenly make someone selfish or inclined to shoot anyone he doesn't like."
Not so much as a straw man as you took that out of context. Being American and therefore batshit-crazy makes you selfish. It's mostly true too.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (5, Insightful)

sortius_nod (1080919) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032881)

>

Take this as another example. Australia recently banned guns, and had their firearm homocide rate TRIPLE!!!

[Citation Needed]

The only "evidence", if it can be called this, of an increase in violence are opinion pieces such as blogs and editorials. There are no statistics or research to back this up. As an Australian I am proud of our gun control laws and laugh every time I see some gun-nut claiming they've done harm.

This is just one site that shows how murders have NOT CHANGED and that gun related accidents have changed. They even state that assaults & other crime cannot be seen as a direct result of gun control laws.

http://www.gunsandcrime.org/auresult.html [gunsandcrime.org]

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (1)

spyder-implee (864295) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033171)

"Take this as another example. Australia recently banned guns, and had their firearm homocide rate TRIPLE!!!" As we say in Australia, 'you just pulled that out your arse.'

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28033215)

What's homocide? Killing gays?

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28033353)

We (USA) have the highest accidental gun death rate... damn noobs. Learn to shoot.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (1, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28033621)

Ok asshole, thanks for showing once again that statistics are bullshit & quoting wiki is dumb.

First of all, your list takes figures from different years for every country on there, so right off the bat it is worth jack shit.

Second, 2/3's of the firearm related deaths in the US, according to your list, are suicides not homicides.

Third, it makes no distinction as to if those firearm deaths were caused by citizens or law enforcement.

Fourth, the list is NOT one of 1st world nations, Russia for example isn't even listed. It's based on GDI per capita which is also horseshit.

and an idea of a lack of responsibility to others. This is what caused the financial meltdown,

No, that was mostly caused by people borrowing more money than they can afford, and banks using fake numbers for property/asset values. And it wasn't just in the US it was the whole 1st world that was involved in the scam.

this is what causes our murder rate to be so high,

No, our murder rate is so high because our foolish anti-drug policies have turned the inner cities into war zones between drug dealers.

and this is why we're the only first world nation to not have social healthcare

No, we don't have social healthcare because I don't want to foot the bill to replace your lungs & liver because you spent too much time smoking crack and drinking hairspray.

If anything, the majority of problems in our country stem from the sense of entitlement that people like you spout off about. Nobody owes you anything, so get off your high horse. It's nobody else' job to wipe your ass so quit expecting others to do so for you.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28033669)

Wikipedia usually doesn't steer us wrong

You mean like how Scientology is a valued, respectible religion and not a moneysucking, bank account draining ####
###CARRIER LOST.

Bad Parenting vs. Gun Control. (4, Insightful)

geekmux (1040042) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032431)

Yet Canada has more guns per capita then the US, and the same video games but also does not have teens prone to violence.

Maybe there are deeper issues then just 'guns be evil.'

Yes, there are definitely deeper issues, and making stricter gun laws is not ever the answer, as evidenced by statistics where strict gun laws did nothing but increase crime rate.

I hate to say the blatantly obvious, but don't try and take my guns away because people generally suck at parenting, which tends to be the true root cause of this issue. If people can't manage to keep an ESRB teen-rated GTA game away from a 9-year old, that is not anyone elses fault, and certainly has NOTHING to do with my other inalienable rights. There's plenty of tech out there to protect your children from the Internet and they already should not be able to walk into WalMart and buy a violent game.

Just another lame-ass excuse to grab guns and excuse parents from actual responsibility.

Re:Bad Parenting vs. Gun Control. (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032929)

There's plenty of tech out there to protect your children from the Internet

You mean tech the average kid doesn't understand far better than the average parent?

and they already should not be able to walk into WalMart and buy a violent game.

Like that's going to help... Ever seen a little boy who just learned to walk and starts exploring his surroundings? The first thing he'll do is pick up sticks and start hitting things with it. There are certain things hardwired in our brain. That's a good thing. You just have to show them when is it appropriate to destroy things. TV doesn't cut it.

Re:Bad Parenting vs. Gun Control. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28033663)

Just another lame-ass excuse to grab guns and excuse parents from actual responsibility.

This conspiracy is missing a motive. Why would the evil government want your guns? Because they're afraid of you getting off your fat lazy TV-watching buttocks and overthrowing them? HA! Get over yourself. You can't even articulate the opposition's argument. Why should anyone trust your analysis?

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032729)

The Fucking word is THAN you fucking moron!

Yet Canada has more guns per capita THAN the US,

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (1)

Jurily (900488) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032801)

First Canada, than the US.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032927)

Nice troll. Bravo.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (1)

Thangodin (177516) | more than 5 years ago | (#28034087)

Whether Canada has more guns than the U.S., the second point is valid. And we do have a lot of guns, and in Switzerland, where they have mandatory military service, everyone keeps the gun they trained with in their home.

The difference is the attitude towards guns and violence in general. In Canada, as in Switzerland, violence is recognized as a state monopoly. We leave that for the police in time of peace, and the army in time of war. The temptation to pick up a gun and use it on someone is regarded as criminal, period. If you want to join a militia, you join the army. If you want to learn to defend yourself, you take martial arts. Guns are for people working in official positions, and even they have to answer an inquiry when they do. When six poorly trained RCMP tasered a man to death in an airport, they got raked over the coals, and they're still getting raked over the coals.

Americans believe they have the right to defend themselves with firearms. But what constitutes self-defense? Who decides? Because if someone is carrying a gun, it becomes spur of the moment, and the guy with the gun decides on the spot. If he's none too bright (and that describes about 10 to 15% of any population) he may decide that shooting you for dissing him is self-defense. And he may decide that just looking at him is dissing him. Or he or she might just be scared, and act on that--my wife mentioned a night where she heard someone running up behind her, and spun to attack him. It was jogger, but she might have shot him if she'd had a gun. If you don't take the time to think--and stupid or scared people don't--you shoot. America's problem isn't just too many guns, it's the fact that people carry them around and feel that they have the right to use them. You have claimed a right which, in the hands of stupid or frightened people, amounts to a right to kill. Since you can't outlaw stupidity and fear, you have a problem.

As for video games, media has a negligible effect on normal people. What does influence them are other human beings. Even kids know the difference between fantasy and reality, much better than we think they do. The Columbine killers were not normal human beings: one was your garden variety psychopath, and the other was a lost kid who fell under the influence of a garden variety psychopath. They didn't do it because they were goths, gamers, the trenchcoat mafia, or any other such nonsense. And psychopaths remain psychopaths even if you treat them to a steady diet of Winnie the Pooh and Little House on the Prairie.

A psychopath is a person in your neighbourhood, as the old sesame street tune goes. And sooner or later, he's going to blow up. Not letting him have instant access to guns is a good start, but you cannot change his nature. He can't kill anyone with a copy of Grand Theft Auto or Call of Duty, and games may even give him an outlet for his madness. Tell your legislators to stop wasting your time and money on this crap.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (5, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032243)

Cars kill more people (42,000) in the US each year than do guns(30,000, more than 1/2 of those suicide), and there are more guns (200 million) in the US than cars(70 million). I know, why let the facts get in the way of a knew jerk reaction to guns?

Bowling for Columbine should be focused upon the Pharma industry, which has more to do with two kids going wacko than the guns and games did.

But that is MY opinion.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (1)

iamacat (583406) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032695)

It's not just how you die, it's how you live. If you are killed in a car accident, you have lived your normal life right up to that point. On the other hand, if you have an abusive spouse with a gun or a gang-ridden neighborhood, you have to live in fear for years until the time when it is possible realized. Besides, when someone dies by a gun, there is usually at least one other person who either spends life in prison or lives forever with regret.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (3, Insightful)

Archangel Michael (180766) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032931)

So, what you are saying is that Assholes (Abusive Husbands) and Criminals are the problem, not guns.

And are you're saying that when people die in car accidents there is no living forever with regrets or prison?

I don't think you thought much about what you are saying.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032797)

Why let facts get in the way of your facts? Especially when you didn't cite a single source.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_vehicles_per_capita

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28033159)

Wow. TERRIBLE comparison. For it to be a little more accurate you'd have to get half the gun owners in the country to take out their guns and start firing them for two hours every day. You think death by firearms would raise once that started happening? Throw in a good helping of 18-25 year olds firing guns after a night of drinking and see what you get.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28034309)

Well, ban cars and then ban guns.
See? It's easy.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (2, Funny)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032303)

They have violent video games in Japan, yet Japanese teens gun prone to violence

I misread that as "Japanese teen gundam prone to violence" and I thought, sheesh -- of course they're prone to violence, that's what they were *built* for.

And then I realized that it's no longer naptime, but apparently I'm still dreaming.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (1)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032591)

They have violent video games in Japan, yet Japanese teens gun prone to violence. Modify the gun laws.

Not trying to be the grammar police, but that sentence makes no sense. Assuming I understand the point you are trying to make, it should read:

Japanese teens have violent video games, yet the Japanese teens are not prone to committing violence with guns. We need to modify the gun laws in the US.

Disclaimer - I'm against modifying the gun laws in the US, as it leads to a slippery slope towards an outright ban on guns. I am just trying to reform your thoughts into coherent sentence structure.

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032759)

What?
"yet Japanese teens gun prone to violence."
What the F*** does that sentence mean?

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (-1, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032803)

Me so solly! Me no speakee ingrish!

Re:I hate that I have to say this cliche comment (4, Interesting)

phanboy_iv (1006659) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032865)

This is something I never understood. If you say, and truthfully so, that violent video games don't make killers, therefore banning them is pointless, the logical principal behind that tends to negate the argument that guns should be treated in that same manner.

And not to be pendantic, but it is rather obvious that even the outright banning of guns would not stop people or children from murdering others, and it is my personal convition that it wouldn't even make much of a statistical dent.

To victory! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28031903)

Hopefully the Supreme Court will see sense on this issue, and give us all the outcome that we want.

Re:To victory! (1)

dgatwood (11270) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032741)

Well, I wouldn't say "all" here. Slashdot is not (quite) a monoculture. Personally, I think it is pretty close to unimportant whether states require adult consent prior to selling violent video games or not, what with me not being a minor and all. It's not like kids really have a complete complement of rights anyway, and ultimately the parents have the right to decide whether to let them have/play such games anyway, so these laws really don't take away any rights except the right of game dealers to not have to check for ID. I couldn't roll my eyes farther.

Whichever way this court case goes, everyone loses because we all are forced to pay for the clowns to write the laws, the lawyers to defend them, and the courts to hear the cases. Apart from all the money and time wasted, it just isn't that important... and honestly, I'd much rather them waste their time coming up with and defending pointless, relatively harmless laws like this than coming up with and defending laws that genuinely impact civil liberties, etc.

Re: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28033069)

This isn't an appeal. This is a petition to the U.S. Supreme Court, which will probably be denied like most petitions.

I don't really see the analogy to the Roper case either; that was an Eighth Amendment case involving "evolving standards of decency" about cruel and unusual punishments. I think the Court would probably want to avoid this case entirely.

How do you define violence anyway? I certainly don't think the State of California could prohibit children from watching Vietnam war footage.

WTF? (5, Interesting)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28031953)

...assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children. How about a bill to assist parents in keeping that harmful McDonald's food out of the hands of children? Childhood obesity does a lot more damage than video games! After that, can we work on a bill to keep television remotes out of the hands of wives and girlfriends? I'm pretty sure that is the number one cause of domestic violence!

Re:WTF? (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032047)

The problem is, most retailers won't sell an "M"-rated game to anyone under 18 anyway...their parents buy it for them! The problem is not the industry, it's the irresponsible, coddling parents...and btw, it's the parents who stuff their kids' faces with MiccyD's, too.

Re:WTF? (1)

JCSoRocks (1142053) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032369)

Parents (if you can really call them that half the time) are most certainly the problem. They are the only people that have any real control over what their children do. Whether or not they choose to exercise it is up to them. Don't come crying to me when you let your kid watch every horror movie ever made and now he's having nightmares about zombies eating his brains while dudes in masks with chainsaws chop his limbs off. It's not the government's responsibility to prevent violent video games from existing. (As if outlawing anything ever prevented kids from doing it. Why don't you just put a neon sign over it saying, "hey kids, this looks fun doesn't it?")

Re:WTF? (-1, Troll)

stonewallred (1465497) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032103)

No, not being in the kitchen making her man a sandwich is the number one cause for domestic violence, followed closely by not knowing when to shut up.

Re:WTF? (5, Insightful)

RsG (809189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032171)

The stupid thing is, parents already have those capabilities, no new laws required. A parent controls their child's finances, access to electronics, and most other decision making.

A parent can easily keep their kid from violent games. Don't buy a console, use proper precautions with computers (like requiring root access to install software and withholding the password), or failing that own a computer that can't be used for gaming (old, cheap or both). Don't buy them the games and assure relatives that you do not want the games given as presents. Do some very basic research.

None of these things are difficult. Most don't even require action, merely inaction, on the parent's part. A modern luddite, like those who support these laws, shouldn't find it difficult.

So, there are only two excuses for this idiocy. The first is that the people supporting these laws really are that lazy, or that unable to say no to their children. In which case, they need only look into a mirror to see the real problem. Laws won't solve the problem, unless those laws make reproduction a privilege.

The second, more likely, explanation is that they want to enforce their own style of parenting on everyone. Which isn't "assisting parents", it's forcing them to do things their way.

Re:WTF? (1)

drinkypoo (153816) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032449)

The most likely explanation is that this is simply being pushed for a political agenda. Anyone who knows anything about anything knows you can't actually stop kids from playing violent games without putting a tracking collar on the little fuckers.

Re:WTF? (1)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032735)

My solution with my own son is even easier. Keep him outside as often as possible, doing as many outdoor activities as possible. Don't give the kiddos any time to play video games.

Re:WTF? (0, Offtopic)

R3d M3rcury (871886) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032789)

The second, more likely, explanation is that they want to enforce their own style of parenting on everyone.

Parent buys M-rated game for kid, believing that their kid can handle the "Adult themes." Kid shows other kids the game. Other kids go to their parents and say, "Can I have that game?" Other parents say, "No."

"Why not?!" whine the other kids.

"Because you're not mature enough." say the other parents.

"But this other kid has it! It's not fair!!" ...and so it goes.

There are various different scenarios. Parent buys M-Rated game for teenage son. Teenage son gets bored with it. Little brother gets it, plays it, shows friends, same conversation erupts. And don't think your kid is going to be honest enough to say, "This other kid got it from his older brother."

Part of the desire for "enforcing their own style of parenting on everyone" is that parents, indirectly, will be affected by the way that other parents deal with their kid.

Don't get me wrong--I'm not excusing parents from their responsibility to have to answer the above questions from their kid. Hey, nobody said parenting was easy. But I can at least understand a parent's desire to not have to go through this.

Re:WTF? (1)

RsG (809189) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032919)

Your example only serves to underscore my point.

If the parent doesn't want their kid playing a game they got off a friend, all they need to do is ensure the kid doesn't have the means to run it. No console means no borrowed console games. An old computer, or an computer other than a windows box would also serve. If you've got some state of the art game-ready PC, then require a password to install software (always a good safety procedure anyway, especially on a windows machine, since you never know what fool is going to run an EXE they got from a strange email addy).

If the kid nags the parent, then the parent can and should say no. Honestly, if a parent hasn't figured this out by the time the kid is old enough to reach a keyboard, then there are bigger problems at work than any video game could ever be.

Re:WTF? (1)

Locke2005 (849178) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033039)

"But this other kid has it! It's not fair!!" ...and so it goes. I'm not seeing the problem here. I tell my kid: "I made an arbitrary and capricious decision; I said no, and no amount of whining is going to change my mind. It is just going to make me angry. And trust me, kid, you won't like me when I'm angry!" In other words, I don't care if every other kid in the neighborhood is stoned out of their mind on primo bud, I'm still not buying the kid a bong! I've even been so cruel as to not let her watch Family Guy! But the thing about kids whining is, they have a really short attention span... Once you convince them that whining won't change anything, in about 30 seconds there little minds will be off on some other subject and they will be perfectly happy. The mistake you are making is thinking you have an obligation to reason with them. You don't! You're bigger than they are, and you can kick their ass anytime you feel like it! End of discussion.

Re:WTF? (2, Funny)

mordenkhai (1167617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033627)

Dad is that you?

Re:WTF? (1)

Darkness404 (1287218) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033077)

The thing is, playing a violent video game, *gasp* won't totally mess up your 8 year old. Some parents don't seem to understand it. Now, if your kid is obsessed with some violent video game then you might possibly have some issues. If a kid goes over to a friends house and plays Halo all night he isn't going to come back some violent sociopath.

What exactly is the harm with a young kid playing a violent video game?

Where is California going to find the money? (4, Interesting)

random coward (527722) | more than 5 years ago | (#28031971)

Where are they going to find the money to bring this to the supreme court?

Wouldn't it be better to actually spend the money on the children in California, rather than pay lawyers to take this clearly unconstitutional law to the supreme court? What with California's budget woes; you would think they would want to save the money so they don't have to cut as much from education and health care for poor children.

Mod Parent Up (4, Insightful)

sudotron (1459285) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032541)

It never ceases to amaze me how many taxpayer dollars and how much court time could be saved if legislators simply read and understood the documents they are supposed to be upholding.

Re:Where is California going to find the money? (3, Interesting)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032713)

Haven't you heard? If California fixes their budget woes, they risk losing the bailout money they got from the Federal Government. That would be a catastrophe!

Re:Where is California going to find the money? (1)

mordenkhai (1167617) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033665)

That's easy, the Mormon church will send it on over from Utah! They're so nice!

So cool! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032003)

they referenced the Ginsberg case! (see: the line about sodomite truck drivers in Howl) didn't realize that particular case was seminal.

long of saying.. (0, Troll)

anonymousNR (1254032) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032013)

the court agreed we need to treat children differently in the eyes of the law due to brain development

kids are retards

Re:long of saying.. (2, Interesting)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032115)

Why not just pass a law against kids being idiots? Solve a lot more problems that way, and has about the same chances of doing anything as these censorship measures do.

Re:long of saying.. (2, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032621)

Seconded.

I also propose kicking trouble makers out of schools and onto the streets, then filling those desks with puppies.

Re:long of saying.. (1)

genner (694963) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032663)

Seconded.

I also propose kicking trouble makers out of schools and onto the streets, then filling those desks with puppies.

There would be fewer puppies on the street that way.

Re:long of saying.. (1)

sbeckstead (555647) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032841)

Why bother, just shoot 'em now rather than later. (the puppies and the trouble makers. same thing really)!

Re:long of saying.. (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032913)

Puppies will grow up to helpful to society.

Re:long of saying.. (1)

interkin3tic (1469267) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033337)

As always, it scares me a little when my joke posts get modded "insighful/interesting/informative" and when my insighful/interesting/informative posts get modded "funny."

Roper? (1)

gravesb (967413) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032043)

Bringing in a case about the death penalty is an interesting tactic. I'm surprised he didn't use a school speech case, as they seem to be more on point. Oh well, hope he loses regardless.

Re:Roper? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032643)

Irregardless of what happens (I could care less), bringing up the Roper case is a perfectly cromulent tactic.

I remember this guy (5, Interesting)

Red Flayer (890720) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032067)

Ah, Leland Yee.

This is the same Leland Yee who has three times been pulled over on suspicion of cruising for prostitutes in San Fran (while holding public office), but never been charged? The same Leland Yee who was arrested for shoplifting in Hawaii, but had all charges dropped without prejudice?

Is it just me, or are those with the biggest axe to grind usually the ones with the most delicious skeletons in the closet?

Re:I remember this guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032245)

delicious skeletons in the closet

I'm getting a boner!

Re:I remember this guy (2, Interesting)

spiffyman (949476) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032485)

Speaking of axes to grind, until you can produce evidence, the answer to all your questions may as well be "no." Seriously, how is this modded Informative or Insightful? There's not a single link to evidence for these claims. In a quick Google search, I found nothing about Yee being picked up for being a john - though lots to suggest he has fought against prostitution for years - and the only thing about shoplifting was this article [sfgate.com] referencing a 1992 incident that appears to have been a big, dumb mistake.

Mods, honestly, why did you mod this up? Do you know something I don't?

Re:I remember this guy (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28033051)

Uh, cuz it's true?
I'm sorry if your Google skills suck, or that the internet doesn't have shit from back then.
Maybe you're just to young to remember all his shit.

Posting as AC to preserve modding.

Re:I remember this guy (1)

schon (31600) | more than 5 years ago | (#28034107)

Uh, cuz it's true?

If it's true, then you'd have no problem producing, you know, evidence then right?

I'm sorry if your Google skills suck

As much as yours? I notice that you didn't manage to produce any links either, and it's you that seems to have a point to make.

There is an old and wise saying, of which I think you should take heed:

"Put up or shut up."

Re:I remember this guy (1)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032699)

California is home to some great, absolutely outstanding public servants, eh? Not saying that my home state has perfect angels serving me and other citizens of Florida, but I'm sure glad we don't have the likes of Yee and Pelosi to worry about. I will say though, Cali does have the Governator as Governor, who could be sent back in time to kill either Yee or Pelosi and change the future.

Re:I remember this guy (1)

Darth (29071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033023)

I think that perhaps everyone has skeletons in their closet, because the perception of appropriateness in society is a fabrication of an ideal that not only doesn't exist, but that nobody really wants to exist.

The deliciousness of the skeletons in the closets of people like Mr. Yee comes from the perception that they are the instigators and promoters of the fabrication that we all quietly disagree with. The exposure of their hypocrisy is enjoyable in a very schadenfreudian way.

In my opinion, they are largely just catering to the societal fraud of morality to get elected and stay elected. In that respect the hypocrisy is ours as members of society as much is it is his for catering to it, probably moreso.

I try to avoid this by not telling other people what they can and cannot do, within the limits of causing indisputable harm to one another (and i'm fine with that if it's consentual).

It is still satisfying and entertaining to see snake oil salesmen exposed as charlatans, though.

Why a law in the first place? (5, Insightful)

Kelson (129150) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032093)

assist parents in keeping these harmful video games out of the hands of children

Wait, so parents can't refuse to buy violent video games for their kids already? They can't confiscate them if the child (or, more likely, teenager) saves up their allowance and goes and buys it themselves?

Re:Why a law in the first place? (3, Insightful)

captnbmoore (911895) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032127)

Because we all know Government can be better parents then the parents themselves.

Re:Why a law in the first place? (1)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032665)

No they can't.
The ones that do end up getting killed by their kids.

Re:Why a law in the first place? (1)

davewalthall (878247) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032959)

If you can get to the game before they've played it, then your kids will just mope and complain. If they've played it, even just seen that startup screen for the game, they'll probably kill you before you even get out the door.

Re:Why a law in the first place? (1)

shentino (1139071) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032997)

Giving parents the right to confiscate (read: search and seize) property from their kids, EVEN if they bought it with their own hard earned money, implies that children have no property rights at all.

Re:Why a law in the first place? (1)

AnotherBlackHat (265897) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033309)

Giving parents the right to confiscate (read: search and seize) property from their kids, EVEN if they bought it with their own hard earned money, implies that children have no property rights at all.

You imply that children can have their own money.
With the possible exception of creative works, most state law believes that parents have a right to their kid's services and earnings.

Re:Why a law in the first place? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28034257)

Giving parents the right to confiscate (read: search and seize) property from their kids, EVEN if they bought it with their own hard earned money, implies that children have no property rights at all.

You're right. Until they're 18 and out my house, they have no property rights within my house.

Except the stores didn't sell to the kids (5, Insightful)

Todd Knarr (15451) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032117)

Someone needs to remind Mr. Yee that, at least in all the cases I've heard reported on, the store didn't sell the video game to the kid. They sold it to an adult relative of the kid, who then gave it to the kid without bothering to check on what exactly their "little angel" had been bugging them for. And then when they found out exactly what little Timmy had gotten, they dove headfirst into that river in Africa and started looking around for someone else to take the blame for their failure. No law about selling video games to minors will do a single blessed thing about that, where there's no video game ever sold to the minor.

Re:Except the stores didn't sell to the kids (2, Insightful)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032629)

Agreed 100%. The real problem is parenting, which won't be solved simply by any sort of legislation. It will be solved by local and state governments doing real things to encourage parents to give a damn about their kids lives, and unfortunately, it won't work in 100% of the cases even if the governments (both local and state, this isn't a federal issue) did their due diligence. There will always be some dickhead parents and some jacked up kids.

Re:Except the stores didn't sell to the kids (1)

jesser (77961) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032687)

Can you give me an example of what governments can do to encourage parents to care about their kids' lives?

Re:Except the stores didn't sell to the kids (1)

pcolaman (1208838) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033773)

Put your money where your mouth is. That is, give parents a tax credit for being involved in activities such as the PTA, After school activities (soccer moms, etc), and enrolling and completing parent/kid activities. Obviously, the big question would be, how do you show that they did/did not do the said activities. I don't profess to have a perfect solution, but getting some sort of documentation from the school and it being notarized would be the simplest solution IMO. As I said, you will never get every parent to give a damn and be involved, but people love tax credits and this could be one way to encourage involvement.

Re:Except the stores didn't sell to the kids (1)

El Gigante de Justic (994299) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033317)

I agree with you here. There probably are a small number of sales to teens, but the vast majority are to parents, grandparents and other relatives.

I wish I could find the article now, but back when the Hot Coffee scandal broke for GTA:SA, there was some grandmother so upset that content like that would be in a game she got for her 11 year old grandson. Apparently the fact that the game was called Grand Theft Auto wasn't enough of a clue that it wasn't child appropriate.

Side note: with the whole Hot Coffee thing, I never understood why parents took so much offense to the hidden Hot Coffee thing that you had to hack to get to, but had apparently no problems with the language, violence or rampant crime in the game.

Correction (3, Insightful)

pestie (141370) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032207)

"California's violent video game law properly seeks to protect children from the imaginary harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games."

FTFY

My personal opinion. (1)

ZenDragon (1205104) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032349)

I didn't RTFA but I personal opinion on the subject are as such: I do believe that violent video games should be kept out of the hands of children. In fact I myself have prohibited my son from playing games like GTA for similar reasons as many of these politicians are stating. I do NOT however believe that should prevent anybody, especially mature consenting adults, from playing those games.

I think games should have better parential controls and/or and retail outlets should have more stringent checking of video game ratings when kids are buying games. In no way shape or form however, would I ever agree with a ban on these games regardless of how over the top they might be. Even if I wouldnt play the game I still feel that we, as americans, have the right to play whatever the hell we want to play.

Still, kids are going to find ways to get their hands on the games, especially as they get older. Honestly though the only kids Im worried about are my own, and once they get past 12-14 or so I could care less what they play, as long as their homework is finished. :)

Sure, he wants to protect kids from violent games, (1)

FlyingSquidStudios (1031284) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032447)

but who will protect those kids from endless frivolous lawsuits?

This is actually a good thing (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032631)

You know, this could be a blessing in disguise. When this is stricken down in the supreme court, it will set a precedent for similar cases nationwide, perhaps putting at least a lid on the subject. Or so I hope.

There's no such thing as bad publicity, after all.

It would be Pretty Funny (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032767)

It'd be pretty funny if some pissed off kid shot the bitch,

unlikely (2, Interesting)

HBergeron (71031) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032975)

A capital punishment decision that was only 5-4 is going to be extended so far as to justify prior restraint on free expression. In fact - yes, this is a legal argument but it just barely passes the laugh test.

wasn't he disbarred? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28032979)

wasn't he-who-must-not-be-named disbarred?

Brain development... (1)

Hurricane78 (562437) | more than 5 years ago | (#28032987)

[...] we need to treat children differently in the eyes of the law due to brain development.

Why did I understand that as "We need to treat their brains, so they stop developing." and "At least they got any brains. Which we clearly don't. Let's nuke them!"

Maybe I'm just tired. ^^
But I don't know it it's from the retardedness of such people, or from fatigue. ^^

Sure, but do the same for religion (3, Insightful)

AlmondMan (1163229) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033009)

And make it illegal to indoctrinate children with religion, as religion is 1000 fold more harmful to childrens' minds than any videogame. Then, when they're of an age where they're capable of choosing themselves, having been enlightened of the choices in religion and atheism, and let them choose for themselves. Just like they can choose to play these presumably harmful videogames.

GOVT Waste (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 5 years ago | (#28033037)

Of Course.....Leave it to the MORONIC government in California to waste MORE money and worsen the budget they already screwed up on !

How about you and Arrrrnold get off your useless a$$es and do something FOR the state instead of WASTING more time and money on something that should be mandated by the parents..

USELESS GOVT !

Re:GOVT Waste (2, Funny)

sexconker (1179573) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033253)

To be fair, Arnold's trying.

Agree with him or not on specific issues, he's one of the best examples of a politician the country has seen in ages. He tries hard, he isn't ridiculously corrupt, he's not afraid to call people out, he doesn't put party lines first, and it's obvious he actually cares about California.

He just gets fucked over by the state legislature in terms of getting anything done, and gets attacked by unions when he tells firefighters and teachers to shape the fuck up.

California Being Stupid (3, Insightful)

Nom du Keyboard (633989) | more than 5 years ago | (#28033731)

Dear California,

As one of the most expensive states in the Union already, and with an electorate who just told you today that we want less government for less money, why are you spending your time on this kind of garbage? Don't you have bigger problems to face?
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>