• Join Us |
  • |
  • Sign in with:

Write to Arnold, Help Terminate AB1179

by Nick Breckon, Aug 10, 2007 12:35pm PDT

The Video Game Voters Network--the same group responsible for the "Fight for Video Games" trailer--is urging Californian residents to participate in a letter writing campaign urging Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger to halt his appeal of a ruling against a controversial video game bill. The bill labeled AB1179--proposed by Senator Leland Yee and signed into law by Schwarzenegger in October 2005--was set to go online January 1, 2006. It would have barred retailers from selling games depicting "serious injury to human beings" to minors. Northern California District Judge Ronald Whyte passed an injunction against the bill in 2005, and then killed the legislation for good in a ruling earlier this week, informally referred to as Judgment Day. Whyte found the ruling unconstitutional, saying that the court found video games no more harmful than "violent television or other, movies, internet sites or other free-speech related exposures." But Schwarzenegger has vowed that the legislation will be back, telling the press that his mission is to protect the children. "The bill I signed would require that violent video games be clearly labeled and not be sold to children under 18 years old. Many of these games are made for adults and choosing games that are appropriate for kids should be a decision made by their parents," said the former movie star. "I will vigorously defend this law and appeal it to the next level." For those interested in fighting back in support of the judge's ruling, the Video Game Voters Network is providing a link to an email form, allowing users to easily sound off to the Governor. "Yes, yeah," replied Schwarzenegger in a recorded statement. "How are you? You lack discipline."


Read all the News


Comments

14 Threads | 74 Comments
  • #70
    Refresh Thread
    By: Jobos x
    Reply
    Know what makes me sick about laws today? It's that we'll never just have 'enough' laws. There will always be tons of bills passing through congress because that's what they do. And because virtually every law is restrictive to some extent, it'll be interesting to see how life will be some 200 years from now. I bet laws are being passed at a record rate and the only thing that keeps them from multiplying exponentially is the fact the the government itself is inherently inefficient. The lazy pace of bureaucracy, it turns out, is probably the only reason we still have as much freedom as we do. But what can you do, eh?
    Aug 11, 2007 7:42pm PDT
  • #64
    Refresh Thread
    By: jigstah x
    Reply
    1. Most of us were playing video games that "depicted serious injury to human beings" way before 18. That age seems way too high considering the violent sensory exposure of films, internet and TV that are basically unregulated. I cant name media that doesn't depict injury to human beings - Harry Potter, you've got kids throwing curses at each other while flying backwards on broomsticks, all while an enslaved race of house elves serve them tea and clean their shit...and you want to stop kids from saving humans from a covenant invasion?
    2. Anyone under 18 buying GTA IV ($60) for playing on a $350+ system did not accomplish any of that 100% independently from their parents. Limiting "direct" access to the material from the retailer will not make it any more difficult for a 14 year old to acquire than it was for him to stumble upon the $700 of video game hardware hes got under his parents TV.
    3. If you are going to draft legislation to solve this "problem", you can't target the media content itself, or restrict the access to it by some arbitrary age limit (as Zhaneel pointed out, alcohol/cigarettes are different cases). And you certainly cant control how parents raise their kids, so at the very best you can make polite suggestions and stfu.
    Aug 11, 2007 10:04am PDT
  • #5
    Refresh Thread
    By: sansight x
    Reply
    hmm should i care if someone 12 to 15 years younger than me can play manhunt2 or GTAIV? Should I have been playing those games under 18...doubt it but then again those kind of games weren't available then...ok you got me i played duke nukem...oooh pixelated strippers, sinful. The more cg pushes the realism in these games the more they should police the age limits at which we let kids play them. Should the government force the issue...sure if parents are too lazy to take the initiative then by all means. nah. While I'm not all christ struck about the sinfulness of games, I don't think minors should be strangling hookers in a back alley with fettucini noodles. Then again what's it matter, they pass a law...johnny minor goes and asks his crack addict mom to buy him said "uber violent game" and all the laws are moot. Nice try arnie, but nobody seems to care anymore...including me!
    Aug 10, 2007 12:58pm PDT