This Wednesday, California will be pitching the old anti-violent video game law to the Court of Appeals. This is the same law that received an injunction last year when it was ruled to be a threat to free-speech rights. This would probably get out of hand if Jack Thompson still had a say. It’ll be more amusing though.
This Wednesday, California will be pitching the old anti-violent video game law to the Court of Appeals. This is the same law that received an injunction last year when it was ruled to be a threat to free-speech rights.
The proposed law prevents those below 18 from buying and renting games that “appeal to a deviant or morbid interest of children and are patently offensive to prevailing community standards.” Very vague. huh.
The proposal also requires retailers to put an “18” label on these kinds of video games. Retailers who allow these games to be sold to minors will be fined US$ 1,000.
A lot of groups were against it the first time it was brought up, saying that it was too broad and was unconstitutional. The movie and music industries were also against it, saying that the law could affect the sale of their respective medias that also have graphic violence.
Sen. Leland Yee, who wrote the legislation, has this to say about the proposal:
This is the same technology the armed forces use to help soldiers kill the enemy. All we’re saying is, ‘Don’t sell it to kids.’
A point more reasonable than Jack Thompson’s “murder simulator” argument to be sure. Arnold Schwarzenegger’s administration, represented by Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, also argues for the proposal, saying that ratings aren’t enough:
It defies logic to suggest that our founding fathers intended to adopt a First Amendment that would guarantee children the right to purchase a video game wherein the player is rewarded for interactively causing a character to take out a shovel and bash the head of an image of a human being.
This would probably get out of hand if Thompson still had a say. Would probably get more amusing too. Whatever their arguments though, if the court found it unconstitutional last year, why should it be any different this year?
Via MErcury News