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!

Unconstitutional Video Game Law Costs California $2 Million

Soulskill posted more than 2 years ago | from the your-tax-dollars-at-work dept.

The Almighty Buck 180

An anonymous reader writes "In hopes of protecting the children of California from the ravages of violent video games, then governor Arnold Schwarzenegger attempted to push through a law that would fine retailers $1000 for each infraction of selling a violent game to an underage child. However, in the wake of appeals to the U.S. Supreme Court, which struck down the law, California is now forced to pay the legal fees of all parties to the tune of two million dollars."

cancel ×

180 comments

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

Government Working For You (0, Offtopic)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119021)

Ah, government doing what it does best!

Nice! (5, Insightful)

ZorinLynx (31751) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119023)

Good. Maybe this will teach future political leaders that censorship is a bad idea.

Oh who am I kidding, these idiots never learn anything.

Re:Nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119077)

I agree until all Government is controlled by our supreme computer overlords they will learn nothing

Re:Nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119505)

Helios will speak. Year of our Union, 125. Our consensus remains clear. Yes. We will prolong this second century of peace. Economical automation is complete. Our research will now encompass other frontiers. Yes. This is the consensus we have created. Our unity will soon be absolute. The remaining boundaries are vanishing. Yes. Share your mind with everyone; open yourself. Your needs are the needs of all. Let us understand and be transformed. Yes. Transform each other and transform yourselves.
The only frontier that has ever existed is the self.

Helios has spoken.

A man can hope...

Gee, the only good thing about that game was its ending. (Thank-you, pun fairy!)

Re:Nice! (1)

sidthegeek (626567) | more than 2 years ago | (#39121147)

Wait a minute, I thought Arnold acted in a movie about supreme computer overlords! And he was one of their soldiers!

Re:Nice! (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119079)

Schwartsy doesnt care, hes already out of office.
Which of course is the counter argument to term limits and what not.
I am just wondering where California will get the 2 million. They can barely cover costs as it is.
And their highways are the worst ever. It is almost like they havent repaved any of them in years.

Re:Nice! (5, Funny)

kelemvor4 (1980226) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119233)

Schwartsy doesnt care, hes already out of office. Which of course is the counter argument to term limits and what not. I am just wondering where California will get the 2 million. They can barely cover costs as it is. And their highways are the worst ever. It is almost like they havent repaved any of them in years.

They were going to repave the highways but then they got high.

Re:Nice! (5, Informative)

popeye44 (929152) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119615)

Well, As I am one of those Caltrans employees.. I can tell you where the money goes that we take in in Gas Taxes, Construction taxes, etc etc. It goes in the General fund. Not transportation accounts. "except for certain taxes which do" So Lets say we have a good year.. and our transportation fund is swollen. The State comes over with its hand out and takes from that fund to put into the general fund. As you can imagine this practice has a way of making roads very hard to maintain. On top of that we have say 40 people to take care of around 1200 miles of road. Between staffing issues, cuts, promotions, vacations, sick days etc. There are typically 26-32 of those people at work. On a good day those folk actually get to do some maintenance on the road. On most days.. they respond to accidents and complaints from the public. So this is a snippet from my point of view. I do live in a fairly populated area.. but NOTHING like LA. SF etc. You can extrapolate that there are more people in those areas.. but by and large CT is an engineering organization and it's more fun to build than maintain.. So that is pretty much how we operate. build more ignore the old.

Re:Nice! (1)

jhoegl (638955) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120357)

Oh yeah, I by no means think it is the Transportation Department that is at fault. It is pretty obvious that the state government is dysfunctional to the level of Greece.
The odd thing is, the state highways which are federally funded, are also in terrible shape.

Re:Nice! (3, Insightful)

Darinbob (1142669) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119941)

And you can't put most of the blame on him. The governor is not a dictator, he needed a bill from the legislature first before he could sign it. He wasn't popular enough among the legislators of either part to push through something through force of will.

Re:Nice! (4, Insightful)

sg_oneill (159032) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120445)

Except in the case of politicians who actually embezel cash for themselves, I dont think billing politicians for bad decisions is a good idea, because it means that only the super rich could afford to be politicians. That means that only your bushes and cheyneys of the world who a couple of million dollars bill wont send them broke, could do it. But your Ron pauls, obamas , and sarah palins could not, because these guys are just upper-middle class folks who would be bankerupted by it. And it means they could not have run.

Do we really want to guarantee a future run by the filthy rich, folks who for the most part got rich by corruption and gouging others for cash?

Re:Nice! (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39120897)

Except Obama is worth 10.5 million.

Re:Nice! (4, Insightful)

Dyinobal (1427207) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119119)

Why you think the politicians are paying this out of their own pockets? This is from the tax payers pockets.

Re:Nice! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119277)

He never mentioned anything about politicians actually paying the fine. Your reply is unnecessary and stupid. When politicians make good moves, it is also with the tax payers' money. Should they not feel any happy about themselves when that happens just because it's not their money? Ridiculous.

Re:Nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119473)

Why would Arnold care any more if he were in office? WTF does it have anything to do with a counter argument to term limits? The implication of the post was that somehow it would make a difference to Arnold if he were in office. That somehow he would be 'punished' in office where he cannot be now.

Re:Nice! (3, Insightful)

Dunbal (464142) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120915)

When politicians make good moves

[citation needed]

Politicians care about votes not money (4, Insightful)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119271)

Good. Maybe this will teach future political leaders that censorship is a bad idea. Oh who am I kidding, these idiots never learn anything.

That is not quite true. You have a very different perspective than the politicians. The politicians have already banked the votes of frightened parents. Wasting money and time and going counter to the constitution are irrelevant to them. All they care about are the votes and the likely voters are the silly frightened parents and not the gamers.

It is amazing to watch the very same people who in their youth were outraged when Al Gore led his crusade against music become the middle aged people who support a crusade against video games.

Re:Politicians care about votes not money (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119537)

It is amazing to watch the very same people who in their youth were outraged when Al Gore led his crusade against music become the middle aged people who support a crusade against video games.

This is the largest amount of bullshit I've ever seen. You're talking about me (and people in my generation). I was outraged by Gore then, I'm outraged by Das Ahnold now.

You don't speak for me or my generation, any more than I speak for yours. Please kindly shut the fuck up.

Re:Politicians care about votes not money (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119601)

Ahh, so we meet, yet again, Coward. The words you speak (or rather, type, in this case), are the reasons for why many of us are looked down upon. I'm not saying that your feelings, and stance against the matter is wrong. By all means, I feel the same. However, the curse words have got to go. If you can not have a decent, human conversation (signed in, no less), you may leave.

Re:Politicians care about votes not money (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119741)

Fear of cursing is childish in itself. His cursing wasn't out of place or overzealous as cursing sometimes is. It made his statement a shit load more effective, I thought.

Re:Politicians care about votes not money (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119779)

But curse words are evil! They'll corrupt the minds of children with their... evilness! In any case, they're bad because I said so (because I don't like them).

Re:Politicians care about votes not money (2)

Cryacin (657549) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119975)

Yeah, you shouldn't swear. Where the fuck do you pick up such language?

Re:Politicians care about votes not money (2)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120615)

For fuck's sake, can you fucking assholes stop all this fucking swearing?

Fuckers.

Re:Politicians care about votes not money (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39121259)

It is amazing to watch the very same people who in their youth were outraged when Al Gore led his crusade against music become the middle aged people who support a crusade against video games.

This is the largest amount of bullshit I've ever seen. You're talking about me (and people in my generation). I was outraged by Gore then, I'm outraged by Das Ahnold now.

You don't speak for me or my generation, any more than I speak for yours. Please kindly shut the fuck up.

Your reading comprehension and logic skills need some work. You are reading in way too many things that are not there. The GP's phrasing suggests that he is of the generation in question. More importantly the phrasing does not suggest that he is making a universal claim about all members of that generation.

Re:Politicians care about votes not money (2)

beltsbear (2489652) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119697)

It was Al Gore's wife Tipper who led the crusade against music, not Al himself.

Re:Politicians care about votes not money (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119881)

Al Gore was evidently in on it since he was present and asking questions at the congressional hearing with Dee Snider. (You can see parts of it in the movie "A Headbangers Journey").

there is nothing wrong with a rating system (0, Flamebait)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119959)

And there is nothing wrong with barring kids from going to see Saw 5 or Basic Instinct.

There is nothing wrong with telling parents "Oh, this game allows you to simulate killing prostitutes". If you think its ok for a 5 year old kid to have 'fun' killing prostitutes and stealing their money, then you have serious issues.

Re:there is nothing wrong with a rating system (4, Insightful)

cgenman (325138) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120213)

Both of those that you list kids could see with parental permission. But more importantly than that, the rating system in Hollywood and the Video Game industries is voluntary. There is no law against kids seeing an R rated film, just a theater owner's agreement. A big part of that is if the rating were given the force of law, it would need to hold up to scrutiny. As it stands, there are a lot of societal standards and other things which don't necessarily hold up to government oversight, and the ratings process is entirely opaque for fear of influence scandals.

So yes, reward retailers who adhere to the ratings standards, be it movies or games. But there are major, obvious constitutionality challenges in giving a voluntary system the force of law.

Re:there is nothing wrong with a rating system (1, Informative)

rahvin112 (446269) | more than 2 years ago | (#39121085)

Incorrect. Some states have successfully made it illegal for anyone under the MPAA or ESRB rating to see the movie or purchase the game without parental permission. The California law was thrown out for how it was implemented, the legality of enforcing the MPAA and ESRB ratings has already been established by the courts, it simply requires certain steps and procedures the Cali law failed to follow.

Re:there is nothing wrong with a rating system (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39121083)

And yet we live in a country where i can watch tv and see a never ending string (ha) of tampon commercials, condom commercials, hell they even got a vibrator commercial now. Let alone being able to watch a birth on tv.. (thats pretty disgusting)

And yet... All that... and we can't see one titty on tv... And everyone either wants to see tittys. Or has them already.

We're a pretty fucked up country from any point of view. All things considered letting your kid play a game where they kill a few more people isnt anything special at all.

Informative labels are fine (2)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39121131)

There is nothing wrong with telling parents "Oh, this game allows you to ..."

Agreed. Informative labels are fine. Stores deciding for themselves that they do not want to carry products with a certain label is fine. I do however think that we have crossed a line when the courts or the police get involved because of foul language or simulated violence.

Re:Politicians care about votes not money (1)

Elbereth (58257) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119993)

It is amazing to watch the very same people who in their youth were outraged when Al Gore led his crusade against music become the middle aged people who support a crusade against video games.

That wasn't Al Gore. That was Tipper Gore, his wife. Also, the PMRC advocated voluntary use of warning labels, rather than outright censorship. Frank Zappa didn't see any difference between the moral panic (some of the stuff targeted is hilarious in hindsight) and explicit, outright censorship, but I think the PMRC were mostly harmless, even if they were batshit crazy. If they'd pushed for anything beyond voluntary warning labels, I'd have cared about their hysterical antics more, but, really, I think it was just a lot of busywork for easily-offended baby boomers. I find it quite amusing that people got so worked up and outraged over both Twister Sister and some dumb warning labels. Overall, I'd say that we'd be better off without the reactionary, socially conservative groups like the PMRC, but I've always seen them as entertainment, rather than a danger. I don't need to watch sitcoms on television, when there are real-life clowns dancing for my amusement, in Congress.

Re:Politicians care about votes not money (3, Informative)

perpenso (1613749) | more than 2 years ago | (#39121067)

It is amazing to watch the very same people who in their youth were outraged when Al Gore led his crusade against music become the middle aged people who support a crusade against video games.

That wasn't Al Gore. That was Tipper Gore, his wife.

A Senator's wife does not call for Senate Hearings. Senator Al did that and testified in support as well.

Also, the PMRC advocated voluntary use of warning labels, rather than outright censorship.

That was a fall back position. They originally wanted to bar the sale of the "most offensive" music to minors. Or perhaps it would be more accurate to say that the recording industry introduced an industry based rating system and warning labels and undercut the PRMC's efforts.

Re:Nice! (1)

MitchDev (2526834) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119459)

Politicians won't learn till these costs come out their own pockets...

No it won't. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119707)

It was the taxpayers that footed the bill. Didn't cost the politicians a single cent. If they learned anything, it is that their actions always cost someone else.

JUDICIARY is not innocent. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119745)

Why strike down the source of inspired violence when it feeds industries across the board. People will only commit the kinds of violence for what they can comprehend, and in many societies where creative thinking is disuaded then the'll only see the kinds of crimes committed for where they were derived. Remember that the Pipe-bomb throwing of the Columbine Event (more like massacre, seeing as the COPS wouldn't enter for 2 hours since arrival) was inspired by Doom 2 and not They Live /staring Duke Nukem instead of moral-man Roudy Roddy Piper.

Take it from me: professional wrestling is pretty hardcore stuff to the general population that is fragile-enough to commit those non-intelligent acts of violence. The smarter criminals go to Universities, into technology courses, because that is the kind of unregulated violence that we know something is hiding but can't discern what.

censorship for kids is a great idea (-1, Flamebait)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119913)

selling violent video games to kids is about as bad as selling them pornography, or letting cigarette companies target them with advertising. it primes them to support things like the Iraq War, or the coming Iran War, which will bankrupt this country and dehumanize the nation.

Re:censorship for kids is a great idea (1)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119977)

selling violent video games to kids is about as bad as selling them pornography

So, in other words, completely harmless.

it primes them to support things like the Iraq War

Wow. Where did that come from? "I played a violent video game. Therefore, the Iraq war is good!" That sounds like a highly probable scenario. Especially since no evidence of such a thing happening to a majority of people was given.

Re:censorship for kids is a great idea (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120805)

selling violent video games to kids is about as bad as selling them pornography, or letting cigarette companies target them with advertising. it primes them to support things like the Iraq War, or the coming Iran War, which will bankrupt this country and dehumanize the nation.

Jack Thompson, is that you?

Re:Nice! (1)

donaldm (919619) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120313)

Good. Maybe this will teach future political leaders that censorship is a bad idea.

Oh who am I kidding, these idiots never learn anything.

Personally I am not against censorship per say, however there are certain classifications (the so called R, X and PG rating come to mind) which if properly implemented are quite reasonable. Unfortunately you always have parent groups who are not satisfied with any type of censorship classification who IMHO don't want to take responsibility for what their children see, hear and play.

In Australia we only have a R15 rating for video games, even though lobby groups have been pushing for an R18 rating for years there are always some "Holier than Thou" who oppose this by giving all sorts of "Think of the Children" excuses. Even with the stupid R15 category it is still illegal to sell to a person under this age group and the seller can be fined and I assume that would be the case in all countries. Of course that can't stop the kid from winging to his parents to get the game for him, but that's another story.

Putting laws in place of perfectly good existing laws seems to be an international pastime amongst politicians.

Re:Nice! (2)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39121097)

Unfortunately you always have parent groups who are not satisfied with any type of censorship classification who IMHO don't want to take responsibility for what their children see, hear and play.

I'm not in favor of any censorship classification that restricts certain people (usually children) from buying games. I will not support such a thing until someone can show real-world evidence that video games actually cause a majority of people to be violent (they're going to need to explain why crime statistics don't support their conclusions at all, too). If they don't cause a majority of people to be violent, then whatever effect they do have is probably so small that we don't even notice it. In any case, I don't think it's a good reason to restrict anyone from buying the games provided they actually have money. I see it as a way to try to appeal to the "for the children" people while keeping the government from stepping in (I'd much rather that the government didn't step in, though).

I don't mind classifications in general, though. As long as they don't prevent anyone from buying a game.

Re:Nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39121251)

The term is per se. Just like it's "rein in", as in a horse, not "reign in", as in a king. Except that it's Latin, not English. Also, last I checked it's "whinging" not "winging".

Re:Nice! (3, Informative)

LordKronos (470910) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120393)

Good. Maybe this will teach future political leaders that censorship is a bad idea.

Oh who am I kidding, these idiots never learn anything.

Of course they won't learn. They didn't learn from last time. There was no surprise about what the outcome would be. This had already been pretty well tested. Illinois had passed the same sort of law, and it was struck down in the Court of Appeals (http://www.gamecensorship.com/Illinois.htm). The state ended up paying one-half million dollars in legal fees. Yet already knowing the result of that case (I'm sure the politicians did their due diligence and researched the matter before making law, right?), California passed their law, then did their usual by taking it a step further....to the supreme court, and for two million dollars.

It's like saying "if I smack my head into the wall even harder, maybe it won't hurt this time".

Re:Nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39120527)

Oh who am I kidding, these idiots never learn anything.

And there you go.

Re:Nice! (1)

DarthBart (640519) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120621)

How will it teach them? The money isn't coming out their pockets. Its the equivalent of getting a parking ticket and paying for it by shaking down the neighbors, putting the money in your checking account, and then happily paying the fine.

Re:Nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39120675)

Maybe if they had to pay out of their own pockets.

Re:Nice! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39120987)

Only if it comes out of their paychecks, I don't feel too bad for the tax-payers in CA though since they elected all of these a-hole politicians.

Now you know why they didn't defend Prop 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119039)

All the money in the budget was blown! Three times over, but that's a whole different problem.

Captcha was brains.

I swear, there's an irony meter somewhere.

Re:Now you know why they didn't defend Prop 8 (2)

MrEricSir (398214) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119419)

Well that and it's a fundamentally bigotted, ignorant law that the state's lawyers are well aware is indefensible. The Mormons can ironically defend "traditional marriage" all they want, ultimately it's their money to lose; not the taxpayer's.

Re:Now you know why they didn't defend Prop 8 (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119923)

Hey now, don't tell that to Imperial County. The Inland Empire was all set to defend it.

So don't worry, there's still plenty of bigotry and ignorance to be found in California!

Also, the Mormon's are using our tax money, since they're taking donations which are counted as tax-deductible. One hand washing the other.

Pointless (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119057)

Where do you think the government is going to get those two million dollars? From the very tax payers they abused in the first place. What a pointless gesture. This will not deter future governors or legislators from pushing through other unconstitutional regulations.

Re:Pointless (4, Insightful)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119171)

There's pretty big overlap between those tax payers and the people who can vote in state elections. So that seems reasonably fair in the end.

Re:Pointless (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119243)

not really since the voters can't be responsible for every single decision politicians make. voters aren't making the decisions themselves, and their choices are limited by the parties in the first place.

Re:Pointless (2)

nedlohs (1335013) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120699)

It's representative democracy - it's how it works.

Note that between the law being passed and it being defended in the supreme court there was an election. It the people gave a shit they would have made that clear and it would have been dropped before making it all that way.

But the voters didn't care. Now they get to foot the bill all 5c per CA resident.

Re:Pointless (1)

epyT-R (613989) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119263)

no.. reasonably fair would be for the money to come from the involved politicians' paychecks. make bad decisions, get docked pay, or fired, just like the rest of the voting block.

Re:Pointless (2)

Dhalka226 (559740) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119359)

Politicians do get fired. We call them elections. In fact I'm pretty sure California has some ever-so-wonderful recall laws on the books if you can't wait.

Re:Pointless (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119515)

Being elected, or more to the point failing to be elected, isn't "getting fired" any more than contractors get "fired" at the end of their contract. They, like politicians, move on to the next contract job. Big. Fucking. Deal.

Part of the problem with politics is simply the fact that politicians escape the vast majority of the consequences of their actions. Not too surprising that such a person spends the money of others quickly and wastefully. Also not surprising that they lie to get the job, but unlike actual contractors, are not released early for being wholly unsuited for the job. Aaaaand .. not surprising that they would pass laws that violate other laws/rights. They don't care. Why the fuck would they? Nothing much happens when they fail to do their jobs well. Or even with mediocrity.

Re:Pointless (1)

Dragonslicer (991472) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120681)

no.. reasonably fair would be for the money to come from the involved politicians' paychecks. make bad decisions, get docked pay, or fired, just like the rest of the voting block.

In some (many?) states, it's illegal to require an employee to pay for any losses they cause. They can be fired, but you can't deduct money from their paycheck.

Re:Pointless (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119485)

This will not deter future governors or legislators from pushing through other unconstitutional regulations.

Probably not, but that doesn't make it "pointless". When the government (at any level) passes unconstitutional laws, they should be financially responsible for the costs of getting rid of them.

Re:Pointless (1)

icebike (68054) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119835)

Two Million is chump change for any Government Agency in California. They have that much slop in just about every department.

Nobody will notice this except the lawyers who got bitch-slapped by the Supreme Court. They may be more cautious next time the governor or the legislature decides to pass something like this, if for no other reason than protecting their good reputation.

Wait, they are lawyers, what the hell was I thinking. Where's my meds.

Take it out of Leland Yee's hide (1)

Volante3192 (953645) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119117)

Seriously. Sick and tired of him... It's Yee's baby, he should bloody well pay for the mess it made.

As much as I like ripping into politicians (4, Interesting)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119129)

for wasting money, and granted this was waste in the name of violating rights and legislating morality, when you get down to it $2,000,000 is rather cheap for a screw up of this scale.

Re:As much as I like ripping into politicians (2)

Firethorn (177587) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119201)

Oh certainly. I'm surprised it wasn't $20M, or even $200M. When you get into governmental waste, it's not hard to start hitting the billions.

Re:As much as I like ripping into politicians (1)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119231)

At least he didn't go all SCO level stupid on it. He would be selling chunks of the state to Mexico to finance the legal battle.

Re:As much as I like ripping into politicians (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119661)

mexico has already taken over....

-san diego

Re:As much as I like ripping into politicians (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39120879)

The total probably was in the $20M-$200M range. Don't forget all the staffers time to write the law, legislators time to discuss and vote on the bill, the printing and distrbution costs for getting the new law to the police, police training time, lawer costs for defending the law and the court's time and costs for all of the hearings.
The $2m was only for the opponent's lawyer fees.

At least it kept some buracrats employed. Hur Hur.

nobodys rights were violated. (3, Interesting)

decora (1710862) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120039)

you dont have a 'right' to sell children simulated experiences of murdering prostitutes and robbing them, any more than you have a 'right' to sell them simulated experiences of fucking prostitutes, or to put cigarette advertising inside of comic books.

of all the actual, real censorship going on in society today, namely, people like Thomas Drake, Stephen Kim, and others being charged with Espionage for simply talking to reporters.... thats what REAL censorship is. i would love to see the people who get butthurt about people disapproving of having 4 year olds simulate murdering prostitutes and dealing drugs, actually speak out against things like the government's treatment of Diane Roark, or the way that Goldman Sachs tries to hush up people talking about oil prices (Leah McGrath Goodman).

oh, but no. lets defend people who want to sell rape fantasies to children. because their rights are what the first amendment is all about. where was the ACLU when Jesselyn Radack was being threatened with prison for simply talking to a reporter about the governments lies? While it is defending video game makers, it did not run to support her.

The ludicrous disconnect between these video game advocates and what is actually, really going on with the first amendment in this country is just mind boggling. Unless, of course, you explain it by the simple profit motive. That is what makes most sense. Regulation of video games would cost money for EA and other 'free speech' advocates. That is why they are against regulation.

Of course, try being an EA employee without signing an NDA agreement. Try being an EA empoyee and talk about forming a Union. Try being a worker at best buy or apple or any other place that sells video games, and talk about better working conditions, higher pay, etc. Then we will see how much these 'free speech advocates' actually care about free speech.... in the end, they make a mockery of themselves. The only regulations they care about are the ones that might hit them in the wallet.

Re:nobodys rights were violated. (1)

Slow Smurf (839532) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120327)

So why aren't they pushing for similar laws for movies at the same time?

Re:nobodys rights were violated. (2)

pecosdave (536896) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120511)

Listen, you have "valid" points but you're twisting my position.

I don't let my nine year old play those kinds of games and I take a personal interest in that process. I don't want the state policing my involvement, the game ratings already on the box assist me in that process.

Re:nobodys rights were violated. (2)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120827)

Jack, that IS you! So happy to see you here. What are you doing for work these days since the disbarment?

Re:nobodys rights were violated. (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120985)

1972, Pong is released. Violent crime rate in the US (includes murder, rape, and aggravated assault) is 0.2%.
1993, Doom, the first 3rd-person shooter video game, is released. Violent crime rate in the US (includes murder, rape, and aggravated assault) is 0.4%.
2010. Video games, many of them violent and played by surly teenagers, are bigger than movies. Violent crime rate in the US (includes murder, rape, and aggravated assault) is 0.2%.

Source: http://www.disastercenter.com/crime/uscrime.htm [disastercenter.com]

Re:nobodys rights were violated. (1)

misexistentialist (1537887) | more than 2 years ago | (#39121199)

You support government thought-control of yourself and 100s of millions of adults to hypothetically protect a small minority of children from an imaginary threat while your heart bleeds for government Ivy League lawyers, government media whores, government espionage creeps, corporate cubicle/retail drones, etc. who eagerly sold their souls. Study at the feet of a real thinker like Larry Flynt until you understand what it means to be free.

The state is broke (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119217)

California still owes my cousin her tax refunds from 4 years ago onward (something like $8500 total). That place is seriously fucked.

Interesting (5, Funny)

colinrichardday (768814) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119307)

Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to prevent children from experiencing violence?

Re:Interesting (2)

hcs_$reboot (1536101) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119353)

That's probably why he never played in a violent movie, to set himself up as an example.

Re:Interesting (2)

Osgeld (1900440) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119479)

I remember commando, it was a heartwarming tale of a girl and her father bonding on a tropical adventure...

Not Arnold... (1, Interesting)

tomhath (637240) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119693)

FTA:

Created by California lawmaker Former San Francisco Democratic Assemblyman Leland Yee, now a senator, in the hopes of curbing children’s access to games that allow for assassination, violent crimes, rape, etc.

Seems this was a law the Democrats "attempted to push through".

Re:Not Arnold... (2)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120563)

FTA:

Created by California lawmaker Former San Francisco Democratic Assemblyman Leland Yee, now a senator, in the hopes of curbing children’s access to games that allow for assassination, violent crimes, rape, etc.

Seems this was a law the Democrats "attempted to push through".

And with the signature of the Republican governor, they did.

Re:Not Arnold... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39120863)

FTA:

Created by California lawmaker Former San Francisco Democratic Assemblyman Leland Yee, now a senator, in the hopes of curbing childrenâ(TM)s access to games that allow for assassination, violent crimes, rape, etc.

Seems this was a law the Democrats "attempted to push through".

And with the signature of the Republican governor, they did.

So the legislature wrote it and passed it, but it's the governor's fault.

Who would you blame if it was a Democratic governor that signed it? George Bush?

Re:Interesting (1)

c4tp (526292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120093)

Schwartzenegger, the guy from the humorless family classic Jingle All the Way? Of course he hates violence, he has Junior to think about!

Re:Interesting (1)

c4tp (526292) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120177)

By the way, these are just about the only two movies he's made that don't have guns (or swords) in them. Not saying they don't, but they're his "cleanest" films for sure.

Re:Interesting (1)

Anonymous Psychopath (18031) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120859)

By the way, these are just about the only two movies he's made that don't have guns (or swords) in them. Not saying they don't, but they're his "cleanest" films for sure.

Kindergarten Cop. There were guns in the beginning and end, but not so much in the middle. Actually wasn't a bad comedy.

Re:Interesting (1)

gmhowell (26755) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120565)

Arnold Schwarzenegger tried to prevent children from experiencing violence?

He had no movies coming out, so he stood nothing to lose. (or loose, as all the kids say these days)

(EDITORS: STORY CAN END HERE) - from TFA (3, Interesting)

VinylRecords (1292374) | more than 2 years ago | (#39119333)

Come on...this should have been submitted in the slashdot summary within the first two or three sentences.

Slashdot is for faggots (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119371)

Only faggots and aspies read Slashdot.

Re:Slashdot is for faggots (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119563)

myself included

Re:Slashdot is for faggots (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119873)

Only faggots and aspies read Slashdot.

Which one are you?
Neither? Then kindly fuck off.

Who was he kidding? (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119791)

Did he think the violent games were pornographic somehow?

Re:Who was he kidding? (2)

GmExtremacy (2579091) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120015)

Exactly. He's be justified if they were. Sex is pure unadulterated evil! I remember accidentally seeing my dad's porn magazines when I was a kid. From that moment on, I was no longer sane. I've been a rapist, a pedophile, and a terrorist ever since.

And I do drugs.

Insert bad Austrian accent here (1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39119979)

Violent brutality in video games should only be depicted between a man and a woman, man on man violence sends the wrong message to our children and encourages deviant behaviour.

Censorship? (-1)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39120021)

You know I actually am in favor of some censorship in this area. First off the average gamer now is in their 30's. Having some laws saying that you cant directly sell a under 18 kid a Grotesquely violent or sexual game isnt that bad a idea. It allows for older gamers to experence more extreme stuff. While keeping it out of the hands of the little kiddys. Not that it will. Really the whole censorship and 18+ rateing for pornagraphy and 21+ for booze has never stopped kids from getting there hands on it. But it adds plausible deniability. Which is a good thing.

Having a good online game that requires you to be 19 year of age or older would be a great thing IMHO.

Obligatory Nelson response: (1)

Fjandr (66656) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120131)

*points at California*

Ha ha.

How come Americans never learn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39120251)

You know they wanted to do this to comic books.
Sounds silly. How retarded do you have to be to buy into this shit over and over.

Re:How come Americans never learn. (1)

JackAxe (689361) | more than 2 years ago | (#39121051)

Americans? Hey thanks! Thanks for generalizing the actions of a few self-righteous-morons to the entire populous. Should I assume the same to where ever you're from? I can tell you that I won't, because I'm not that naive -- I can't say the same for you.

And so can I please get (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39120343)

Short term limits for the win. Career politicians should be burned at the stake. They cost the taxpayers money for stupid shit like this. Stupid shit that serves no practical purpose to the public in the first place. And for what its worth $2m is chump change which will be forgotten next week if it hasn't been already. Make it $200m or even $2b and it'd make an overnight difference.

Ah, but I am a dreamer. Too bad its not the American Dream.

Re:And so can I please get (2)

HarrySquatter (1698416) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120471)

Why do you presume that short term limits are going to prevent corruption? Why wouldn't it just mean that they'll do even more blatant bullshit since it doesn't matter anyway since they have no worries about re-election?

You think one day they would learn. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 2 years ago | (#39120463)

Really, how many times have laws like this been made unconstitutional? Considering there is already an agency that rates video games, (the ESRB), that is a thousand times more accurate then the MPAA, why not just do the obvious, and restrict the sale of M rated games to minors. They already have precendence with the MPAA, so it can't be thrown out. It will keep kids pure, (until their 18th birthday), and it won't cost them the millions they seem to like spending on it.

It's the old dichotomy, the politicians who keep wasting out time are either evil or incredibly stupid.

Think they'll learn from it? (1)

J'raxis (248192) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120959)

Nope.

It actually cost more than 2 million $ (1)

aepervius (535155) | more than 2 years ago | (#39120995)

The time spent on legislating, the time spent on making it official, the time *some* people might have spent actually enforcing that law, all that adds up to more than 2 million $, probably by an order of magnitude at least. They are only counting the fee the state has to pay.
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>