Lawsuit Intended to Strike Down California Games Law

Remove all ads!

Entertainment Software Association intends to sue and strike down the California video games law recently signed by Schwarzenegger. It looks like it has some real chance of success, given federal courts seem to believe such laws violate free speech provisions of the federal constitution. Here's a snip:

The trade group Entertainment Software Association "intends to file a lawsuit to strike this law down and we are confident that we will prevail," President Douglas Lowenstein said in a statement on Monday.

Schwarzenegger signed the California measure into law last week, but it faces an uncertain fate. Federal courts have ruled against similar legislation in Washington state, the city of Indianapolis and St. Louis County in Missouri, finding the laws violated free speech guarantees in the U.S. Constitution.

Someone please explain to me how ratings violate free speech.

Read the whole thing at Yahoo.

 

I would say that by enforcing ratings instead of using them simply as recommendations that you're descriminating against those of younger ages. I suppose if limiting people's access to other's free speech is a violation of free speech - then that's how. There should be a different term for it - but it's regardless.

 

I thought that the law was simply about enforcing the restriction on sale of M or AO rated games to minors. But if it is trying to stop the sale of violent T rated games to minors, then it should be reconsidered.

Ratings already provide for a way of ensuring that people know what type of games they are and what type of audience they seek.
The Californian law seeks to bar sale of games like Call of Duty to kids 13+ old even if the ratings were to allow it. Obviously it will be challenged.

 

Sorry, but parents are the holders of the freedom rights when it comes to children and it's up to parents to determine the values their children are to adhere to, which includes keeping them off violent or sex-laden games. Ratings are informative and help this purpose. There is a right to make games with various kinds of content but there is no right to expose children to extreme violence or lewdness, not any more than to put up a sex shop in a school. Come on Aik, doesn't it violate your freedom of speech if you can't run a sex shop in a public school's building like you can food and drink or books or writing utensils?

 

Enforcing the ratings by their age restriction is perfectly fine. But it likely won't do **** for restricting which games kids play. There are always paid intermediaries that could buy the game for the kids. Heck, a homeless guy would probably do it for a couple bucks. It's still a good idea, though. Not only would it grant parents a greater measure of control, it might also pump some money into the homeless economy.

But ^that^ is just stupid.

 

But it doesn't give the parents more control - it gives the government's department of moral values more control. Parents are able to stop their children if they find the content objectionable - and the parent's standards of what is acceptable may be very different from what the government's are.

I'm against restricting porn as well, btw - though selling it through school is just silly - especially seeing that the people owning the school are going to stop this. However, if a place sells porn, I see no reason to restrict it - it's either that or a) internet, and b) wanking without it. In the end it just doesn't matter, and the 'problem' is only going to get worse by restricting it as people are fascinated by what they can't have.

 

But giving up on ratings and allowing everything by default unless parents specifically object is not an answer. Parents aren't going to preview each single thing their child reads or watches. The only cause this is going to serve is filling the coffers of game publishers.