RSSSchwarzenegger Vows to Fight Repeal of Violent Video Game Law
By Scott M. Fulton, III | Published August 8, 2007, 12:50 PM
A controversial California state law banning the sale of so-called "violent video games" to citizens under the age of 18, was struck down Monday in US District Court as unconstitutional. Judge Ronald Whyte made this ruling two years after putting a stay on its enactment pending review. Now, Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger -- who signed the bill into law -- is vowing to appeal the ruling.
The governor's appeal, with all its embedded ironies of a former action movie star speaking out forcefully against wanton depictions of violence, will no doubt launch a new wave of speeches and photo opportunities, followed by excerpts of the alleged violent acts depicted on television and Internet news, giving those games public exposure - including to children - that advertising couldn't possibly purchase.
The law, known mainly by its 2005 bill title AB 1179, cited studies stating youth participation in violent video games results in gamers experiencing "a reduction of activity in the frontal lobes of the brain, and to exhibit violent antisocial or aggressive behavior." But it then went on to define "violent video game" using language that may have been too vague, and too open to legal challenges.
"'Violent video game' means a video game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being," the act's definition began.
It then continued by applying a strange condition to those options: The violent acts would necessarily have to be something a "reasonable person" would assume would be a "deviant or morbid interest" to a young person - in other words, something you or I would expect to be disgusted by if some 12-year-olds walked by us in the grocery store talking about it.
The two other conditions were that the act would have to be of offense to the community as a whole (which assumes that communities who would not be collectively offended by sexual assault could congregate and form a township, thereby providing a legal exception); and that the act would cause the game as a whole to lack artistic merit.
Surprisingly, in his December 2005 preliminary injunction in response to a lawsuit against Gov. Schwarzenegger by the Video Software Dealers Association (now called the Entertainment Merchants Association) and the Entertainment Software Association, Judge Whyte ruled their arguments that the law as written was too vague in its definition, was not the reason for granting the injunction.
The game Postal II, Whyte wrote, "meets both prongs of the definition (though either alone is sufficient). Shooting schoolgirls in the knee and then setting them afire appeals to the deviant interests of minors...Whether something is 'patently offensive" under community standards is a question of fact...but the court can easily imagine that Postal II 'is patently offensive to the standards' of some communities 'as to what is suitable for minors'...The game appears to have no 'literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors'...The game thus is a 'violent video game' under the first definition in the Act. Furthermore, shooting schoolgirls in the kneecap is inflicting serious injury, and then setting them afire and urinating on them as they crawl about is especially cruel and depraved (as those terms are defined in the Act) and constitutes torture."
On the other hand, Whyte found, if you're wearing a uniform, then killing seems to be okay. With regard to Full Spectrum Warrior, he wrote, "The player controls two four-man U.S. Army squads fighting in an Afghanistan-like urban environment...The squad members have personalities; they complain about their mission and use profanity when they come under heavy fire. Careful planning is necessary to succeed; much of the game is spent using one squad to distract an enemy while the other squad circles around him to get a good shot. Enemies are usually shot at a distance, and they fall down bloodlessly when shot or killed with grenades."
So it's not really the killing so much as the bodily fluids which offend the sensibility of communities, according to Whyte's interpretation of the act. As a result, he wrote, "The plaintiffs have not shown they are likely to succeed on their claim that the Act is unconstitutionally vague."
What ended up causing the injunction to be granted - and, inevitably, the law to be repealed - was the notion that the State believed it could actually enforce this statute. "The plaintiffs have shown at least that serious questions are raised concerning the States' ability to restrict minors' First Amendment rights in connection with exposure to violent video games," Judge Whyte wrote, "including the question of whether there is a causal connection between access to such games and psychological or other harm to children."
Whyte's repeal on Monday provoked the Entertainment Merchants Association to issue this statement: "It was inevitable that the federal district court would find the California video game restriction law unconstitutional, as eight similar laws around the country have been overturned in the past six years. We informed the legislature that this would be the eventual result when it was considering the law, and it is indeed unfortunate that legislature ignored the prior cases. It is now time for the California legislature to move beyond political grandstanding and accept the video game industry's invitation to work with them to educate the public about video game ratings and encourage parents to utilize those ratings when selecting video games for their families."
Next: Does the EMA have a point?
Well, people voted him... now live with it. :P
I agree with most points expressed here. Parents have to take more care and control of their kids and Terminator is an hypocrite for sure.
Score: 0
|he is corny
Score: 0
|Spoken like a true politician. I cant wait for the coverage of the Terminator Bonfire. I would donate mine but I have enjoyed looking at Linda Hamilton's Breast ever since I was a pre-teen.
He must be joking because if he was serious he would be banning Saturday morning cartoons which, under these terms, is a much more serious problem.
Personally I think covering all games in a McDonalds meal wrap would solve the problem.
Score: 0
|The man who brought violence on all childs televisions.... How American.
Score: 0
|What a hypocrite someone over 15 can watch his violent movies but can't buy a violent video game.
Score: 0
|http://www.penny-arcade....ages/2001/20010516h.jpg
Score: 0
|Yup. Sad but true...
Score: 0
|That's a laugh. Schwarzenegger the epitome of violent films is going to try and fight the repeal of a violent video game law? Give me a break. [tsk]
Score: 0
|I get tired of the Gestapo mentality of this country. It used to be real free now we have too damn many politicians and do gooders trying to have us all in a little box of political correctness. One nice thing about getting old, won't be around to see these butt heads make a bigger mess of things than it currently is.
A game does not cause behavior problems, a child or adult without values and proper parental guidance upon growing up is the problem, DUH.
Score: 0
|It IS unconstitutional. Go back to Austria and screw with your own country!
Score: 0
|McBain!!!!!!
Score: 0
|*laughs*
Now *that* was funny!
Score: 0
|As a parent of two young girls, we only let them play games on the PS2, which is hooked up to an all-in-one LCD with a built in DVD so they can watch movies as well. This sits right in the middle of our kitchen island and they have to ask before they go online. They can only use an older notebook I gave them to browse the web and both of us can see what they are doing at all times.
Thier bedrooms don't have TV's in them at all. If parents would just act a little bit responsible instead of ignoring thier kids and buying them anything they want, then violent video games shouldnt matter.
We keep them busy with activities and sports they are interested in so they can actually interact with other kids and not become hermits who lock themselves in thier bedrooms all day.
It's not the games, it's the parents who don't give a sh!t about thier children.
Score: 0
|Nicely done! see? that's what I'm talking about, PARENTAL CONTROL!!! I hate when people blame video games for the behavior in our children. When I was a kid, my mom would just make me disconnect my sega genesis (at the time) and put it away for the whole week of school, IF I was good and if she wanted, she would let me hook it up over the weekends, that was because I would lose my temper when I play videogames and lose, its funny, I did break a couple of controllers but my mom didn't let me do that sh!t, so she had CONTROL over me before ANYTHING else could. Come sunday night 8:00 P.M. that Genesis better had been boxed and put away in my closet 'til my mom decided when to come out =)
Score: 0
|Thank you! :)
Score: 0
|I agree almost completely. If parents lead by example, and discuss right and wrong regularly with children, no real censorship of television, games, or the internet is necessary. Children will know what is silly, nor real, and (in certain cases) morally right.
Score: 0
|Exactly. The other option is to not have children, but people are too selfish and self centered to do that.
Score: 0
|"The other option is to not have children, but people are too selfish and self centered to do that."
Not have children?! Perish the thought! I'm surprised America hasn't outlawed NOT having children, because it goes against the status quo. The American dream is marrying your high school sweetheart and then having her pop out a few kids whom you neglect and let television raise, while you slave away at your nine to five job, while at the same time keeping an eye out for terrorists whom according to your government could be hiding around every corner!
Score: 0
|I used to like Schwarzenegger before he became a politician. Now he sucks ass.
Score: 0
|For god sake, there is nothing wrong with games but with ppl who play them and can't understand that those are just GAMES. I can kill entire horde of zombies (3000 walking cadavers), bust all the Combine and Marine asses in Half-Life series, wreck entire Police department in NFS and after 5000 frags in UT, CSS and Q3A you could hardly see me as some nutcase. Sure i'm all into computers and stuff (like others are all into ship models, footbal/basketball or Barbie dolls if you want). When i close the game it's closed for good. I can remember good memories from them but thats it. It's closed, disabled, turned off. Doesn't exist anymore.
In fact it's quiet funny that everyone is spitting over games while in the very same moment no one does the same to movies which have way higher rate of (very) bad language, sex scenes, drug abuse scenes, killing and blood. And no one is making a big deal out of it. And as long as no one does anything about movies i'll support games the way they are.
I don't have anything against ratings like 18+ but i certanly don't want games content to suffer because of such stupid things. If 12 year old kid buys a 18+ game, thats not my fault. It's his parents fault or the store which sold him the game. I'm just a consumer and as such i basically demand games to be like they were designed by the developer, not how some stupid politicians that have no freakin clue about games wanted.
Btw, amen to the last WeezulDK's paragraph.
Score: 0
|I think another aspect of the violent video game stigma is the oversensitive namby-pamby Liberals and Politically Correct idiots all worried about offending someone.
If anything, violent video games say to me:
Human beings are drawn to violence just like any other pack animal, and the world isn't a peaceful place. If your fragile widdle mind is able to be influenced by violent games to go out and do violence, then you're no better off than a raging animal to begin with. No amount of civilization is going to stop those who have a predeliction for violence in the first place, and it can be a variety of factors, including upbringing, social morality of where they live, religious beliefs, and even mental instability/insanity that causes people to do violence.
It's about time people faced facts and accepted personal responsibility for their behaviors instead of trying to find a scapegoat.
First it was rock and roll, then it was D&D, then it was Rap music, now it's violent video games. When are people going to stop lying to themselves that they are not properly instilling the right values in their children and accept the fact that if you don't be a parent, then the child will derive their values from whatever is around them.
A properly raised person will be able to distinguish between fantasy and reality, and keep them separate, even when playing a violent video game.
Score: 0
|While in the past I'd say you were probably right about liberals and politically correct people, I think in the present day it is more likely to be conservatives that want to restrict a persons right to view or play entertainment that *they* don't like or are offended by. Just look at all the public grandstanding against TV "indecency" by people like Senator Lieberman (arguably the most conservative Democrat) and all the Republican House and Senate members.
My personal opinion is people of about 13 or 14 are well capable to cope with anything they may see in an M rated game or R rated movie. People that aren't able to handle and interpret this material responsibly are people with a problem that goes much deeper that doesn't just get solved with age so it's not right or fair to restrict everyone else's access to that material. However, I'd like to see violent material focused on more as opposed to the way we currently focus so much on sexuality and language.
Score: 0
|Perhaps this would prevent these crazy people getting hold of the games (which would be a good thing) and getting new ideas.
Ok, that's quite tenuous, but surely if it prevents one crazy bas**** killing lots of people it's worth considering?
There's a rating on films already...
(Not entirely all my opinion, but it's worth looking at the other side of the story too...)
Score: 0
|"However, I'd like to see violent material focused on more as opposed to the way we currently focus so much on sexuality and language."
+1
We all got here by ****ing.
Score: 0
|Ok, that's quite tenuous, but surely if it prevents one crazy bas**** killing lots of people it's worth considering?
Not at the expense of anyone else's rights. Including those of the seller, the retailer, and anyone who actually *wants* to buy it.
Score: 0
|And what will the dead people say?
Oh good, I'm dead because that law was against my rights.
/ok, this is getting silly.
Score: 0
|Yes, let's throw away all of our rights so some crazy SOB will have one less excuse as to why he wasted those folks (We all know, regardless of the game, it would have happened anyway).
Score: 0
|Let's all wear helmets and live in patted rooms and only speak once we have submitted what we want to say to a Politically Correct Monitoring Committee and only after it has been approved.
No. It doesn't work like that and that is what Judge Whyte is trying to avoid, a frivolous ban based on a loosely based definition of what one group thinks.
Score: 0
|Hehe, Your silly WeezuIDK. Schwarzenegger is a Republican, a Conservative!!! So why are you blaming Liberals?!? Conservatives are the ones trying to enact all these "save the children" laws. Man do your research before spouting about something your "widdle" mind can't fathom.
Score: 0
|Schwarzenegger is a Republican, a Conservative!!!
Schwazenegger is a RINO. Republican In Name Only. He's a Lib through and through. Most republicans can't stand him.
Conservatives are the ones trying to enact all these "save the children" laws.
*laughs*
Wow. I haven't seen a comment this clueless in a *long* time.
Two words:
Hillary Clinton
Man do your research before spouting about something your "widdle" mind can't fathom.
You were wrong on both counts. Arny's *not* a conservative, and Hillary (a dem) has been the spearhead for a good portion of the Nanny State legislation out there.
Try doing your own research, eh?
Score: 0
|After all those wholesome family movies he made I'm sure he's quite the expert.
Score: 0
|This is a wonderful point.
Post of the day goes to you.
I suppose he can come back with "Aaah, but they were age restricted" though.
Score: 0
|Yes.. but his movies were rated by the industry themselves, not through government inteferance...
Score: 0
|Schwarzenegger Vows to Fight Repeal of Violent Video Game Law
I'm sure it was only a typo, but didn't you mean:
"People everywhere vow to make sure this idiot never gets elected again"?
Score: 0
|That's what was said at the last general election (or whatever it's call in the US when you vote in a new President).
'Make sure Bush never gets elected again.'
Didn't happen though, did it.
Score: 0
|Beats the hell out of the alternative.
Score: 0
|World of Warcraft is perfectly suitable for "kids" (according to ratings) and i can guarantee it has ruined, if not killed, more lifes than any knee busting first person shooter ever has.
For the record, Postal (2) is one of the worst games ive ever played. If you turn into a nutcase because of playing this game, im pretty sure theres something wrong with you.
...and no, its not because of the game.
Score: 0
|None of your examples are because of the game. ;)
Score: 0
|President Schwarzenegger ;-)?
Score: 0
|Not possible. He's not a natural-born citizen (unless you want to... Amend for Arnold; www.amendforarnold.com; saw one commercial for it years ago and the site still exists today).
Score: 0
|It was possible in "The Simpsons Movie" only :-D
Score: 0
|This is ridiculous.
This has been tried, what, ten times now? Each time it's been struck down as unconstitutional.
At this point it is *nothing* but a complete and unforgivable waste of taxpayer's money.
Get these idiots out of government. Want to "Think of the children"? Think about how much of that wasted money could have stayed in the pockets of their parents, or gone into education. Instead, it went to the lawyers. Oh Goody.
Score: 0
|Of course it has been struck down, because it *is* unconstitutional. The government has no business regulating what parents should be doing themselves.
Score: 0
|No disagreement here.
One wonders why our leaders, who are supposedly better able to figure these things out than us have been, as yet, unable to come to the same conclusion.
Score: 0
|it's simple... they know it will fail, but it is a feel good legislation that does nothing positive for actual safety, but makes their voters feel like they are doing something... similar to pretending that the 55mph speed limit it to save lives...
Score: 0
|similar to pretending that the 55mph speed limit it to save lives...
Actually, it's to improve gas mileage. ;) (I bet you knew that, didn't you?)
Score: 0
|Just drive fast behind truckers, it's the same thing as driving at 55. The downside is an increased probability that you will crash, but hey, you get there quicker!
Score: 0
|but hey, you get there quicker!
"there" being the morgue?
Score: 0
|nods.. and now.. they exist just to make their voters think they are doing something useful while generating revenue. I recently saw some stats from England, where the number of traffic tickets quadrupled, while the number of traffic fatalities stayed the same...
Score: 0
|