State Sentaor Leland Yee, the author of the California video-game bill set to be argued before the Supreme Court, has responded to the Court's decision to hear the case.
In a brief audio interview, released on his website, Yee said, "I'm just thrilled that the U.S. Supreme Court has taken up this particular bill. It's an affirmation of some of the things I've been thinking about and working on relative to ultra-violent video games."
Yee sees the decision as a sign that the Supreme Court sees merit in the California law that bans retailers from selling violent games to minors.
"The Supreme Court has started to look at not just my bill, but other bills that have been promulgated out of state legislatures... that have moved into the court system and been struck down. I think after so many bills coming through the Supreme Court is saying there is something going on in this country. Individuals are concerned. we've got to start weighing in and providing direction to these elected officials."
Yee believes the Supreme Court will provide a pathway for how to "move in this direction and not violate the First Amendment."
That's one way to look at it. The other way to look at it is this: Maybe the Supreme Court is saying, "Hey, all these laws keep getting shot down by state courts for various reasons. Let's determine, once and for all, that games are protected speech, so state legislatures can stop wasting so much time and resources with clearly unconstitutional laws."
Also: As a reminder to Yee and all lawmakers who are horrified at the violence in games: Games are pretend. They are not real. Although it may look like a violent, blood-soaked dismemberment on your TV screen, those are fake people. Like puppets or cartoons. On behalf of taxpayers everywhere, I urge you to ignore pretend problems in favor of real ones.
Source: Game Politics
Comments are Closed
Comments
Displaying 1–20 of 20
goricky
P.S.S. Yee, if I were you, I'd be more concerned with getting minors away from horror movies (i.e. Saw, The Ring, The Grudge) before violent video games.
goricky
Hey, G4, I love how you guys are determined to get us all the news video game related, I really do, but if you want to get your traffic numbers up, then generally (but not always), politics is not how you do it on a video game website. Just puttin that out there
P.S. FIRST!
Cathartic Denoument
I wanna know if he's even PLAYED a "violent videogame" before.
'Cause if he's trying to push this bill without having firsthand knowledge of what he's trying to advocate against, then he has no merit, and will fail UTTERLY.
elgranconde
Phhooockkk youuuu Whaaalee!!! and tha phockkkkk you dolphinnnn!
BulldogTac50
The Supreme Court is full of old people like Roger Ebert who probably hold a bunch of opinions about video games without ever having played a single one. I'm concerned about this case, actually.
topgamer101
While the supreme courts decision will be final, Yee better not get tunnel vision and think the judges are automatically on his side.
I'd imagine if every other court hearing in the country struck it down, the supreme court wouldn't just pull a huge 180. We'll see how it goes down.
Mrdc55
If you agree with this bill, you affirm the beliefs of lazy parents and Jack Thompson. If it passes, the only winners are the misinformed who see video games as nothing more than pornography.
Mrdc55
It's still censorship.
If you agree with this bill, you're affirming the stance of anti-video game lobbyists who believe video games are porn.
joe888
Listen A 17 year old maybe able to deal with a mature game. If understands the rules: lot of the stuff in the video game ARE NOT REAL! Rule 2 Please try not do anything in a video game, in real life.
BONERJAM
Yet again we have another Californian trying to tell us how things should be. How about trying to fix your failure of a state?
banodyne
Instead of focusing on issues that really affect the day to day lives of his constituants, like how there were record turnouts when a new free clinic opened in L.A. recently, he focuses on curtailing our civil liberties. Wish I could vote this idiot out of office.
greeknerd
I think every one should be less concerned about violent video games and be more concerned about the parents that can't read the back of a box.
silent_jedi
like everyone else says, it comes down to the parents. they need to stop copping out and saying "oh how am I suppose to know" because there is just way too much info out there that they can look up on various video games, not to mention the esrb rating right on the box. being a parent can be difficult at times, but if you dont want to deal with it, why did you become a parent in the first place? I am a parent, and I know what its like. Just gotta be aware of what your kid is doing and be logical about your decisions. I know, logic not really used a lot but we gotta start using it more people.
Giovanni117
Oh Noes... We're becoming Australia!!!
D:
NOhara24
Parental Discretion can save millions of dollars and a ton of time if parents just use it the same way they do on movies. Seriously, take 3 seconds and look at the video game ratings system. PG-13 = T. M = R. AO = NC-17. Not tough people. It's amazing to see all the controversy over violent games sprouting up just because parents are choosing to remain ignorant and are shocked when they see little Billy mow down pedestrians in GTA. "That's appalling! Why was my child allowed access to such a game?!" says Sally soccer mom. You bought it for him. Because he wanted it. And guess what? The game TOLD you he had the ability to mow down those pedestrians even before you bought the game! On the back. Next to the letter rating. Just. Like. Movies
Facepalm America, facepalm.
Tman88
There's a couple issues with the this bill. One being like someone mentioned earlier, parents can still buy their kids mature-rated games. The other is that retailers have a store policy that prohibits sales of mature-rated games to underage people. So even if the bill does get passed, it won't fix the parenting issue.
Dreadlocks88
The bigger problem is the parents who are so lackadaisical with their kids where they just let me have or do whatever they want not violent video games. Parents know their kids and if they know their children aren't mature enough to play these violent games then they shouldn't be buying them. Game companies, the ESRB, and gaming stores cannot do all the work and hand holding. I remember when GTA 3 came out I wanted it so bad but could not have it for the longest time but after some months my mom sat down and watched some people play it and looked some things up on it and said it was ok. That's because well she's my mom and she knows me and how I would react to anything in that game. I agree that not every underage child knows how to completely separate pretend from reality I saw it all the time even in high school. I just don't like when the problem is so obvious but people ignore it for their own pride and agendas
PersonaShin
This isn't going to solve the problem at all. Why are people being so delusional about this?
Vikingfist
Glad I'm not a minor. Anyways, and unfortunately, I know plenty of parents that'll buy their 13 year old kids GrandTheftAuto, Prototype, MassEffect, or whatever they want. Just because a child can't buy 'em, doesn't mean they can't badger their parents into picking them up for them! But where does it end??? Violent video game possession laws?? Redonkulous!!
IamtheBat
If the US Supreme Court follows the precedence set forth by the US Court of Appeals and by numerous other State and Federal Courts this will just be some added publicity, and the law will be struck down.
This is Truly a Landmark Video Game year.
Displaying 1–20 of 20