California's Anti-Violence Video Game Law Thrown Out
The Ninth U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals ruled that a 2005 California law that prohibited the sale or rental of violent video games to minors is unconstitutional, saying that the "lawmakers failed to produce evidence that violent video games cause psychological or neurological harm to children," and that there were other ways to deal with access to violent games, including the current voluntary rating system, public campaigns to educate parents, and parental controls.
The law was never enforced because a lower court barred it from taking effect back in 2006.
Jack Thompson is going to be pissed.
"California's video game law ruled unconstitutional" [Reuters]
(Photo: No More Heroes, Ubisoft)
Post a comment
Comments:
Wow, common sense has finally seized the day...heaven forbid parents actually monitor what their kids are watching/playing.
Oh yeah, and Jack Thompson is a giant douche.
Wow, your telling me that in a state in America, some government body is advocating common sense and parental responsibility? I may have to mark this day on my calendar. Go 9th circuit of appeals.
Oh yes, I can see the headlines now:
"Jack Thompson comes out of hiding in his cave in Mordor to protest 2005 CA law. Jack will also be taking a stand on Grand Theft Auto IV, Street Fighter, and Teletubbies: The Video Game. Details at 11."
@Yossarian: "too restrictive and violates free speech guarantees."
I'm gonna guess 1st Amendment and... 14th?
I might fail con law this semester.
@skizsrodt: Not just any body, but the 9th circuit. This really is a glorious day.
Now, what is this "educating parents" that they speak of. How does that work?
But of coarse add some "hot coffee" to your game and watch the powers that be go into a primal meltdown. I wonder how long Mortal Kombat would've lasted if they would've had a "FUCKTALITY" move where you bend your opponent over and have simulated sex lol
I'd be interested in knowing how they "proved" that pornography is dangerous to minors.
Sometimes you may not be able to prove something to know that fundamentally it's right.
@rockasocky: Definitely the 1st amendment...The 14th, though, deals with civil rights and voting issues, not so much free speech ones. Therefore, I don't think it applies here.
@Scatter: There was a famous 1st Amendment case where a justice said [paraphrasing]. "I don't know how to define pornography, but I know it when I see it."
I think your situation falls into the same category.
I worked at Target for a while.
I can state with certainty that the voluntary system does NOT work. PARENTS DO NOT WORK.
When GTA 4 came out, I had a 12 year old kid try to buy it, I told him his parents needed to purchase it because it was rated M.
His mother came over and he told her it was a race car game, I told her about the violence in the game and sexual inuendo and what not.
She bought for him anyway.
I would not want my 12 year old child to play that game.
I'm as happy about this as the next guy and agree with the ruling, but unfortunately The Ninth is the most overturned court in the country and I suspect that this case isn't over.
@1stMarDiv: lol i agree Jack Thompson is a duche.... I really hope someone shoots him..or he atleast looses his licence to practice law.
@1stMarDiv:
"Wow, common sense has finally seized the day"
I never, NEVER thought I'd hear that sentence uttered in regards to the 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Hell didn't just freeze over, Satan's also giving free sleigh rides.
I just love that you used No More Heros for the picture...
I'm all for personal and parental responsibility. Unfortunately, I refer to the 9th Circuit Court as the Pancake Court, as they're always getting overturned.
Jack Thompson is going to roll in his gr-Oh wait, he's not dead. Someone should get to work on that, before he goes moves to Cal-ee-for-ni-ay and wrangles himself up a Bar Exam just to get in on THAT gem of a case.
@idip: Why am I not surprised by this, anyways? This happens all the time due to the fact that the parent does not want to mess with their kid who is on the verge of throwing a tantrum because the game they want is rated Mature and therefore, cannot play it. I happen to have done this with my kid cousin who was only 16 and wanted me to get him GTA: San Andreas in GameStop. Just let the kid have it, it'll probably be taken away and sold before the kid even has a CHANCE to play it.
Genuine question here... not any snark or hidden agenda.
How is this different from movie ratings that prevent minors from seeing the movies without parents? R and NC17 ratings keep kids out of theaters.
The content is similar... language, violence, gore, etc.
Sure it is bypassed and poorly enforced, but how does exist without being constitutionally challenged?
Simple. The movie rating system isn't law. It's voluntary. Trying to make it law would create the same situation we have here.
I am all for free speech and constitutional rights. But, I personally don't see the harm in limiting a minors exposure to violence, and gore, and sex, and so on. Just like the movie ratings. I understand those aren't 'laws' but I don't get it.
What rational person is going to argue 'Well, I WANT my 11 year old to be able to watch Apocolypto, and play Grand Theft Auto 37 and bang hookers without a rubber!'
Like I said, I'm all for free speech and against censorship, but for minors? Come on, man, there is no reason to fight this fight.
What I don't understand is that there are ratings on the front and back of video game boxes. (And might I say that the ESRB ratings are better and are more informative than those of the MPAA.) Anyways, it's the parents responsibility to read and understand the ratings and make sure the game is right for their kid.
The government (state or national) should not waste its time on such simple matters.
@Twinrevanoe: Yes, but you as an individual do not have any right to dictate how someone parents (or doesn't)...only society (through its governments) can.
@synimatik: I agree. Sometimes parents are too stupid to monitor what their children are viewing. It's for children that laws like this exist.
And don't get me started on the whole "free speech" thing. There's no such thing as 100% free speech, and we all know it. Nor should there be. Things like slander, harassment, and abuse can be verbal, as well as causing mass mayhem and chaos (the classic "fire" in the movie theater or a bomb threat).
@synimatik: The government doesn't have the authority to enforce that type of law.
You have every right to prevent your own children from purchasing or playing those games, but you don't have the right to have the government make that decision for everyone.
@RodolfoGorilla: The First Amendment protects your right to free speech from the federal government. But it's the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment that forces states to respect those rights as well.
@synimatik: I'd argue it. I know that even at that age, I had the ability to separate fiction from reality. Like MooseOfReason said, if you think different for your own kids, that's fine, but the government can't enforce such a thing.
@idip: Let me see if I understand you: the kid had to get his parents' permission to buy the game, and after hearing your description of the game, they decided to buy it for their son.
So what's your problem? That's exactly what we want parents to do, isn't it?
The fact that your or I would not have bought GTA for *our* kids is irrelevant. They're not your kids and you aren't making decisions for them. That's the system working.
Oh, won't this be fun it if gets to SCOTUS.
"It's a Ninth Circuit opinion....but wait! It upholds the rights of the market and individual parents and is in favor of free speech! DOES NOT COMPUTE....DOES NOT...COMPUTE..."
@synimatik: There are so many things wrong with what you said.
The bill singles out video games. Why not target movies, music, and literature. There is no legislation requiring movie theaters to prevent minors from watching R rated films. Would you rather have children watch Pulp Fiction, read Mein Kampf, or play Grand Theft Auto IV?
The primary concern here is that legislation of this sort allows the government to step in for the parents.
@1stMarDiv: Actually this law would probably increase the ability for parents to monitor what their kids are playing. Under this law, the parents would likely have to BUY the game themselves. Likely resulting in the kids having to ask their parents for the game.
@Scatter: I'm curious as well. I'd be curious as to what 'proof' they used. That being said, that law was probably set in a simpler time when there was enough public uproar to justify it?
@Nitrokart: But if the kid can buy it without their parents entering into the equation, how can the parents effectively monitor?
If the morons had based the laws on movie ratings and age limits, it might have held up. The movie industry might have been forced to back up the lawmakers - if one rating/limiting system went, the other might have to go.
As for the claim that video games lead to violence, there is none. It's as big a lie as the claim that porn leads to rape. You can find independent studies on both that show violent games and porn are cathartic and reduce crime.
@Scatter: They didn't. Porn is not harmful to minors by and large. Its ready available in Europe where they have less sex crimes and sexually obsessed neurotics than we do. Deep Throat was shown on TV in Italy. Crime was way down in Rome that night. Sounds more like a public good to me.
@synimatik: Movie ratings are voluntary. There is no law to enforce them. Many movies in NYC and other places that show movies that are not Hollywood fare, are not rated and therefore anyone can attend. The ratings system for movies was voluntarily set up by the late Jack Valenti to avoid government intervention.
@nbs2: That's just silly-talk. Everyone knows parents done did all their learnin' the second the female squirts out a podling.
...uh...I've actually heard an officer of the court in CA tell a child psych professional that their opinion of a child's behavior and mental state wasn't valid because she didn't have children herself.
@idip: I used to teach fifth (FIFTH!) grade, and kids had GTA for their PSP's. 10 year olds. Just think about it for a minute. 12 is way past the age of GTA these days.
@synimatik: Because evidently, lawmakers cannot provide CONCLUSIVE, TRUSTWORTHY studies which show that violent (Movies | music | video games) are damaging to children/minors. If they could, then there would be compelling reason to curtail first amendment rights for minors.
@FunkmasterC: Not buy the kids a tv, a video game system, give them money, allow them to shut their doors, only have the tv in the living room, watch them play the game, play the game themselves, etc.
It sounds like an ill-conceived law but I'd be interested in which bits of the Constitution prohibit California from passing and enforcing it.