California seeks US Supreme Court review of 'violent game ban' [update]
by Randy Nelson 
{ May 20th 2009 at 3:05PM }
California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed Assembly Bill 1179 into law, said of today's action, "By prohibiting the sale of violent video games to children under the age of 18 and requiring these games to be clearly labeled, this law would allow parents to make better informed decisions for their kids. I will continue to vigorously defend this law and protect the well-being of California's kids."
Update: Entertainment Consumers Association president Hal Halpin has weighed in on California's plea to the Supreme Court. His comments can be found after the break.
Much of the criticism directed at the law has focused on the fact that most retailers already abide by the ESRB's rating system and that its criteria for flagging a game as "violent" -- "games that depict serious injury to human beings in a manner that is especially heinous, atrocious, or cruel," according to bill author Senator Leland Yee's office -- was too arbitrary.
The ESA, which sued the State of California over the law, commented on the state's latest action, calling it "a complete waste of the state's time and resources" and "wasteful, misguided and pointless litigation." ESA president and CEO, Michael D. Gallagher, stated, "We are confident that this appeal will meet the same fate as the State's previous failed efforts to regulate what courts around the country have uniformly held to be expression that is fully protected by the First Amendment. California's taxpayers would be better served by empowering parents and supporting the ESRB rating system."
Hal Halpin, president of the Entertainment Consumers Association has also issued a statement on today's move by California, reading, "I was disheartened to hear that Governor Schwarzenegger is petitioning the Supreme Court over labeling and sales of video games, especially given the fact that nine similar pieces of legislation have been overturned on First Amendment grounds, costing the respective cities and states much-needed taxpayer funds. Coupled with California's $21B economic crisis and the fact that the Governor is about to lay off teachers en masse, it's shocking to the conscience. This was a frivolous political football back when the state had money to burn. Now it's out-and-out irresponsibly politicized."
It's important to note that the Supreme Court isn't hearing or ruling on the law -- or even reviewing it. The state has simply asked the judiciary body to take a look.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
Donald @ May 20th 2009 3:09PM
Let's not forget that California is $21 billion in the hole and voters just shot down tax increases.
The last thing they need to be doing is writing seven figure checks to lawyers.
343 Guilty Fart @ May 20th 2009 3:44PM
Exactly what I was thinking. "Um, hello. Just FYI Governor, there's no money left to write up this bill, we can't afford any new pens and all the ones we have are out of ink."
Jamesonite @ May 20th 2009 5:11PM
Umm there weren't any tax increases being voted on yesterday they were budget amendments.
That is like saying putting a big mac in a new package makes it a new burger.
Shagittarius @ May 20th 2009 4:44PM
Interesting that Arnold just got back from hanging out with Obama yesterday. I wonder if Obama is gonna use some of his Chicago muscle style influence over the courts to get their way?
Bagels: Commander in Chief of the lolcat sarcasm alert force. @ May 20th 2009 3:10PM
They need a clear label, say,
A UNIFORM LETTER GRADE ON EACH AND EVERY GAME?
Rob @ May 20th 2009 3:10PM
Isn't the state of California in some sort of crushing financial crisis? Don't they waste enough money without pushing these laws that ultimately fail and require paying for the video game industry's legal fees?
acefondu @ May 20th 2009 3:12PM
lol. The Governator amuses me. I and probably thousands of others used to watch his movies at quite a young age.
I really do not understand why the state has to be the parents of kids protecting them from entertainment media when the real parents should be. Furthermore, this whole argument is negated with one word which is "internet." The sole provider of all things considered abusive and harmful to kids that is in your HOUSE rather than on store shelves making it far more accessible than any death wielding video game...Not to mention parents are now given a "parental lock" on literally every electronic device ever made now. What MORE can companies DO I ASK?
Bones3D @ May 20th 2009 3:29PM
I remember seeing The Terminator when I was six years old at a drive-in movie theater. That scene where the governator cuts out his own eyeball with an exacto knife is one of the earliest childhood memories I have.
I never tried it, but man, if there had been an atari 2600 title that showed it, I'd have been in the hospital with bloody eye patch the next day...
Eric @ May 20th 2009 3:13PM
I love the fact that Arnold a man who made is living on being a violent action hero is all about condemning violent games.
Rob @ May 20th 2009 3:14PM
He's a politician now, that changes a lot of things.
Eric @ May 20th 2009 3:17PM
Yeah but he just let his likeness be used in the new terminator movie. So it's a bit convenet don't you think?
Stix Remix @ May 20th 2009 3:47PM
There's nothing more violent than a politician!
Don't you see? He's merely penetrated our defenses in effort to have a huge viral campaign for Terminator V: Election Day. "The Vote for John Connor"
Instead of trying to assassinate Connor in the past, they're trying to kill him in caucus.
Deezul @ May 20th 2009 3:15PM
How about a law that says if parents let a child PLAY an M rated game and Mommy or Daddy is not present at all times, Mommy and Daddy get fined $1000. Think that will fly? Legislate responsible parenting, instead of making Gamestop be a parent?
Joanna D @ May 20th 2009 3:16PM
I don't understand why Americans are so resistant to this. Clearly they need SOMETHING to be done to prevent innocent developers and publishers from feeling the wrath of lawsuits charging them of causing acts which minors say are inspired by their games.
Of course, as it's the stores that are responsible for selling the things and it's currently perfectly legal to sell a 5 year old GTA IV, surely it should be them who is punished when a kid gets their hands on the inappropriate content?
The Dark Wayne @ May 20th 2009 3:19PM
it should be the fucktard parent who buys their 5 year old GTA IV that gets punished
Eric @ May 20th 2009 3:20PM
We are resistant because kids will be kids. People should be a better parents and take interest in what there children do and play. It's not up to the retailers to police video games. If a 5 year old walks in to game stop and buys a $60 copy of GTA4. why is it the Retailers fault. where did this 5 year old get the $60? oh yeah the parents. They should be monitoring there children.
Slaziman @ May 20th 2009 3:24PM
They don't even need to monitor their children, just turn on parental controls and it's done, little Johnny can't play any M-rated games anymore.
Joanna D @ May 20th 2009 3:27PM
You are all missing the point. Currently the law of the USA allows a child of any age to purchase mature material. There need not be a parent present AT ALL.
B3astofthe3ast @ May 20th 2009 3:42PM
"feeling the wrath of lawsuits"? You've got it all wrong, its California thats going to be "feeling the wrath", not the game developers, who, always have, and always will, have free speech on their side. If movies and books wont be regulated, then no matter what, video games wont be either.
LegendaryWolfeh @ May 20th 2009 10:56PM
What the hell are you talking about? You have to be at least 18 to buy Mature Content and most stores require you to have a type of ID to prove that or they won't let you have the game. It's up to the people selling the game that they follow that guideline or not
The Dark Wayne @ May 20th 2009 4:15PM
if a little kid is going to gamestop by himself to buy GTA IV, the kid buying games probably isnt that families biggest problem
Edge @ May 20th 2009 5:29PM
You must live in Europe to have a viewpoint like that. The government is not the vanguard of everyone's safety. It's an invasive, inefficient, and ineffectual mass of busy-bodies who have nothing better to do than trample our freedoms. They have their purpose, but this is NOT it.
And what freaks me out is that there are people so willing to give up our freedoms so parents don't have to do their job and parent.
The free market works, and it was working until someone had to jump in and take individual credit for what we ALL are doing. That's government, trying daily to justify it's existence.
Edge @ May 20th 2009 5:34PM
"Joanna D @ May 20th 2009 3:27PM
You are all missing the point. Currently the law of the USA allows a child of any age to purchase mature material. There need not be a parent present AT ALL."
You're missing the point. That's called freedom. Freedom to look at mature content in all it's various rearrangements and realize "What's the big deal.. this is kinda stupid." Freedom to raise your own children the way you want them raised. Freedom to take responsibility for your own actions or inactions. I don't need government to tell me what's right and wrong. And I don't need a tragedy affecting 0.0000001% of the population to dictate how the other 99.9999999% should live.
LaughingTarget @ May 20th 2009 7:22PM
On a more practical note, laws attempting to outlaw behavior just don't work. If it passes, it will only backfire and drive more kids, who already have access to Mom's credit card, online to buy where you can't verify your age. Yes, even the fancy Joystiq age verification thingie on their videos can be bypassed by l33t h4x0rz.
Just look at how well the War on Drugs has functioned in America. A larger percentage of people use drugs, narcotics are cheaper than ever, 3 million people are in jail and tens of thousands of people are dead, making America's murder statistics look like some third world hole when most of those deaths are due to drug turf wars. I know this is an extreme example, but you can't legislate away bad behavior.
Summary: Any laws aimed at limiting video game use will just cost a shit ton of money and not actually do anything.
Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ May 20th 2009 3:19PM
Ummmmm Isnt that 'M' on the cover enough???
its not the Retailers fault if dumbass parents buy games for their kids
R @ May 20th 2009 3:26PM
Sadly, someone has to take the blame, because thats how society works. And since you couldnt possibly ever blame the children themselves or the parents of said children (that would make sense you see, so of course politicians wont do it), then you have to scapegoat someone. In this case, the retailers.
Chris D.(PSN: Aggie_CEO | XBL:The Aggie CEO | Steam: Aggie_CEO @ May 20th 2009 4:09PM
Sorry but I wont buy my kids any M rated games until they show me that they are Mature enough to handle it....i,e, 17....if someone else gets the game for them and I see it I wills simply confiscate it....not write a letter to my congressman bitching about how my son got a game and I dont know how
Slaziman @ May 20th 2009 3:22PM
Why won't fucking dumbass parents use the parental controls on the goddamn consoles, PROBLEM SOLVED
What's that? Because they're stupid? Oh....
Latin_Trident @ May 20th 2009 3:31PM
I sold an xbox live card last week to a guy who was buying it for his kids (8-12 yrs old) and I said, "Just letting you know, people trash talk like crazy on Live" and he said, "I know. I let my kids talk back." I was really shocked. Honestly, Shocked!
Parents are responsible. Not the government. The last thing we need is more government in our lives. IDIOTS!!!!
I will leave San Francisco and move to Oregon or Washington. The taxes and liberal (NO BRAIN) idiots are driving me up the wall!!!
manyquestions @ May 20th 2009 5:02PM
If you're tying to get away from liberalism, I think Oregon and Washington might be some of the last places you want to go.
mahouneko @ May 20th 2009 11:51PM
@manyquestions:
What gave you the idea that liberals are to blame for trying to regulate video game violence? I mean, the Utah anti-violent video game legislation itself was in part sponsored by the jackass-of-all-time and we all know that he's a friggin' Republican.
mahouneko @ May 21st 2009 12:00AM
@Latin Trident:
*cough*
1. Republicans are generally considered to be conservatives.
2. Ah-nold signed the anti-violent video game into law and he's a Republican. In fact, he's been asking Circuit Appeals Courts and whatnot to revive the unconstitutional state law.
3. The Jackass-of-all-time has been trying to strangle violent video games to death and was recently disbarred for being a ravin' lunatic. In fact, he hates all things liberal. A quick google search would show this to be case.
That said, I think you've got your perceptions of conservatives and liberals messed up if you think that liberals are to blame for the lunacy that is consuming conservatives [sic: Republicans] in general.
required @ May 20th 2009 3:31PM
Come on, lets get real. What the world needs now is a violent book burning. Not books that are violent persay just the burning need be violent. Then and only then will we be free. We could make a game of it!
ColorblindMonk @ May 20th 2009 3:32PM
If the government believes they should monitor what children play, then there must be a lot of bad parents. It's just a waste of time and money. Money that could be used for something important.
MisterSquared @ May 20th 2009 3:34PM
To all the people "ZOGM PARENTZ THEY AREZ SO DUM!"
It's not that the parents are stupid, it's that they don't want the responsibility or the blame for the actions of their children. "Why should 'I' have to spend the 5 seconds it takes to activate the parental controls, when the video game companies and state should be protecting my children!"
Hell, it's just like the f***ing school systems.
Mr Khan @ May 20th 2009 3:52PM
Personal responsibility is the opiate of the masses
HappyFunBall @ May 20th 2009 6:58PM
Never underestimate the power of stupid people in large groups.
DBuck_Eye @ May 20th 2009 4:00PM
Why is it these people are working to get bigger labels on video games, but not on something actually dangerous, like say cigarettes?
PARANOID365 @ May 21st 2009 2:14AM
Exactly, and what's the point of bigger labels anyway when the parents are ignoring the ones we have now !! Then these same fucktard parents will just ignore the bigger labels as well and continue to let the TV raise their children !!
MarkHawk @ May 20th 2009 4:04PM
Can we stop wasting money on this...
Mack Swift @ May 20th 2009 4:24PM
Unfortunately, parents do pay attention to what their kids play, watch, say, and daresay , even read. Its just that they don't care at all. Many, many parents out there treat their children as nothing more than part time side jobs.
Drop the kid off at school, drop the kid off at whatever practice, drop the kid off at friend's house house, drop off with group of friends at movie theater, place kids in front of video game system or tv with library of movies available and tv shows.
Where do they get the money from all these activities and how do they travel to these places of activities? Courtesy of the parents of course.
With all those things, the kid is out of sight and out of mind. The parents are perfectly aware of what their kids are going to see, say, and do. They just do not care unless something bad happens and thusly causes undo attention and scrutiny towards the parents. Parents just play innocent and dumb and claim that there was nothing available to tell them that the whatever it was that their kids were doing could have bad stuff in it.
Joey @ May 20th 2009 4:39PM
California is run by a bunch of morons and is filled with more morons that keep electing the other morons back into office. Every day, a new "Nanny Law" is passed in California to protect us from ourselves. The last law they tried to get passed was to outlaw the color black on cars because it help causes global warming. They just have way too much time on their hands and never think of the financial impact that their decisions cause. I was hoping Arnold would just let this one go but his ego is too big to admit defeat.
HopkinsGamer @ May 20th 2009 4:48PM
I agree 100% that it's the parent's responsibility. I remember when they started putting ratings on games, I couldn't believe. I remember saying to myself "Great. Now the [sometimes] beautiful artwork that the covers of these games gets has to be mauled and covered by some giant letter of the alphabet? What a treat. And the back is full of useless information about why it got that rating instead of information I care about like, say, what the hell the game is about?" I can't count the number of times in my video game retail career that some brainless parent gave me the thumbs up when I asked them if they were sure they wanted to buy their 7 year old a copy of God of War, GTA or some other M rated game. It's bad enough I have to listen to a bunch of 10 yr olds (13 or older is the limit) on Xbox Live screaming and hollering, there's no way I want my tax dollars supporting this lazy nonsense.
CyberKnight @ May 20th 2009 5:26PM
Even if it weren't unconstitutional (proven repeatedly in the courts in several states, including California itself), the law is so laughably stupid.
"The law would require an additional warning label on games and slap retailers who sell violent games to minors with a $1,000 fine for each offense."
So already parents, kids, and game store employees ignore the existing label. Their solution? Slap another label on the cover. Ooo, brilliant. I'll bet parents are going to be just as effective at ignoring two labels as they are at ignoring one.
And as long as the game stores don't get caught more than once for every 20 games or so, they'll probably just write off the fines as a cost of business.
Diskoboy7 @ May 20th 2009 8:48PM
Arnie's about to get a 'Total Recall'....
Hasta la vista, baby!
I could go on with the cute little action movie quotes for days, but I'm too damn lazy.
Lilikka @ May 20th 2009 9:55PM
What a load of bullshit. Honestly, parents are the ones responsible for their kids' upbringings. Hell, i've taught my 4-year-old that she better not even ask me about T or M games until she's much, much older. Even then, i make sure to play the games i'm interested in giving her before i just pass them over to her. But i guess i'm in the minority if laws like this are even though about :/
Mako @ May 21st 2009 9:38AM
Listen if the state governments want to have fines for sales of material deemed inappropriate for children. Fine. But they better apply it to ALL media equally. Not just games. It is so hypocritical to apply it ONLY to games. That means all printed material needs ratings too. Movies already have them, but they are not manditory so that would have to change and every movie would now require it. All material rated for for mature audiences would then be subject to the same rules. Otherwise they need to drop the litigation.
The other way is to have people get involved in thier community. Call out retailers who sell mature content to children. Make it a pulic relations issue for those retailers. Give them the financial incentive to be somewhat responsible in thier communities and they will do it. Most large retailers already do this because they want to be seen as responsible in the marketplace.
Of all the social issues troubling our society, having some bullshit law to try and keep the 'damaging video games' (Sarcasm) out of the hands of children, is just plain moronic.
This country needs to get it's priorities straight.
tokyostomp @ May 21st 2009 6:52PM
i used to work at blockbuster and a kid came in trying to rent gta 3, so i was like nah dude, you need parents permission. (she was sitting outside in the car). the kid was a dick and said he was gonna tell my mom on me. i responded that she was dead because somebody car jacked her then killed her. he got white as a ghost and i was like nahhh just fucking with you and rented him the game.