California Files First Brief In Videogame Sales Ruling Appeal

California Files First Brief In Videogame Sales Ruling Appeal

image

California has officially filed the opening brief in its promised appeal of a 2007 decision that struck down a law prohibiting the sale of videogames to minors.

On his official website, California Senator and noted videogame critic Leland Yee applauded the action, saying, "I am hopeful that the ninth Circuit will overturn the lower courts decision and help empower parents with the ultimate decision over whether or not their children play in a world of violence and murder."

"California's violent videogame law properly seeks to protect children from the harmful effects of interactive, ultra violent videogames. As stated in the appeal, our efforts to assist parents in the fight to keep these harmful videogames out of the hands of children should survive Constitutional challenge under all levels of judicial review," he said.

Originally passed in 2005, a preliminary injunction prevented it from actually going into effect prior to being struck down as unconstitutional in 2007. In his ruling that the law contravened the First Amendment, Judge Roland Whyte also questioned the link between videogames and real-world violent behavior, writing, "The evidence does not establish that videogames, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, internet sites or other speech-related activities."

In its opening, the state's brief to the appeals court reads, "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 the character to take out a shovel and bash the head of an image of a human being, appearing to beg for her life, until the head severs from the body and blood gushes from the neck. Or guarantee children the right to purchase a video game where the player can cause the character to wound an image of a human being with a rifle by shooting out a kneecap, pour gasoline on the wounded character, and then set the character on fire while the character appears to be alive and suffering." No indication is given as to what games the brief was referring to.

Permalink

"pour gasoline on the wounded character and then set them on fire"?
What game is this? Anyone?

Back on subject, it just goes to show that politicions can be some of the biggist jackass's
on the planet.

The Article:
As stated in the appeal, our efforts to assist parents in the fight to keep these harmful videogames out of the hands of children...

I don't agree that passing a law absolving parents of their parenting duties is the best way to assist them. If these politicians are so worried about video games ending up in the hands of kids, why don't they work with the ESRB by helping them fund a national advertising campaign educating parents that these games are rated in such a way for a reason instead of trying to give parents more of an excuse not to pay attention to what their child is doing.

Malygris:

In its opening, the state's brief to the appeals court reads, "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 the character to take out a shovel and bash the head of an image of a human being [...]

Referring to Postal 2, so it seems. A game that would certainly be banned if it was released in today's post-Manhunt 2 arena.

I don't really understand the whole First Amendment argument there. Surely this tactic only proves that the Amendments are dated and somewhat irrelevant to modern life. No, of course the founding fathers didn't intend for children to play ultra-violent videogames; they didn't exist yet. Yes, it defies logic, and I don't understand why they are bringing the First Amendment into this.

qbert4ever:
"pour gasoline on the wounded character and then set them on fire"?
What game is this? Anyone?

Back on subject, it just goes to show that politicions can be some of the biggist jackass's
on the planet.

The game is called Postal. Actually everything he mentions only happens in Postal.

I do find it incredible, that he can justify his opinions from a single game, thats already banned from all videogame stores i know off. It doesn't makes sense that you can make a law for selling violent videogames to children, by showcasing a game no one can buy anyway, beause they banned it. If they can't buy it, theres nothing to worry about when it comes to that game.

And he actually lies, the game doesn't reward you for killing people, you can just do it if you wan't to for fun (if your into that sort of thing). And he forgot to mention you can pee on them too.

I like the state's seal.

meridiangod:

The Article:
As stated in the appeal, our efforts to assist parents in the fight to keep these harmful videogames out of the hands of children...

I don't agree that passing a law absolving parents of their parenting duties is the best way to assist them. If these politicians are so worried about video games ending up in the hands of kids, why don't they work with the ESRB by helping them fund a national advertising campaign educating parents that these games are rated in such a way for a reason instead of trying to give parents more of an excuse not to pay attention to what their child is doing.

Nicely put

Meh I don't think there's much wrong with stopping underage kids from buying adult games. Here in Blighty you can't buy an 18 rated film unless (gasp) you're actually over 18, and I don't think games should be any different.

Banning them altogether on the other hand...

I'm not a constitutional expert (I'm not even an American), but there are two concerns relative to the First Amendment aspect of the debate that I can see. One, if the First Amendment can be fucked with, then none of them are sacrosanct, and that means that even though you may not care much about videogames, somebody might someday decide to start dicking around with an aspect of the Constitution you do care about; and two, if the First Amendment can be "adjusted" to exempt videogames, what's next? Maybe porn, that might make an easy target for the "think of the children" crowd. But what about objectionable music? Or maybe books that somebody decides is subversive? It's a can of worms, it's a slippery slope, it's a dangerous precedent, it's a well-used cliche that is nonetheless very relevant to the situation.

Bah. Let them have their peace of mind. It's not as if people play Postal any more.

Except for thirteen year-olds with sadistic fantasies fuelled by such videogames and THE UNHOLY FIRES OF HELL IN UNISON!

Yeah, well.

You get the point.

j-e-f-f-e-r-s:
Meh I don't think there's much wrong with stopping underage kids from buying adult games. Here in Blighty you can't buy an 18 rated film unless (gasp) you're actually over 18, and I don't think games should be any different.

Banning them altogether on the other hand...

Agreed. Let us adults have our fun, and keep the children out of it. Our BBFC standards make perfect sense to me.

Why spend loads of money nationally advertising ESRB standards to people who will ignore them anyway. If a game is judged to be too much for children, then best and most efficient way is stop them getting it at the retail level.

J

 

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here