Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

11 states side with California in violent gaming case

Supreme Court receives submissions from Golden State supporters in defense of prohibiting violent game sales to minors.

The state of California is arguing before the Supreme Court to save its bill banning the sale of violent games to minors. It's a fight against the Entertainment Software Association that has dragged on since 2005, but it's one the state will not be fighting alone.

State Senator Leland Yee

State Senator Leland Yee

As the bill's author, California state Senator Leland Yee today announced 11 states filing "friend of the court" amicus briefs in support of his legislation. The states going on the record in support of the law include Connecticut, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Louisiana, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Texas, and Virginia. Some of those states--notably Illinois, Louisiana, and Michigan--have tried to pass their own laws restricting violent game sales in recent years, though none of their efforts have survived judicial review.

Yee filed his own amicus brief in the case along with the American Academy of Pediatrics and the California Psychological Association. That 41-page brief included a statement endorsed by about 100 scholars, researchers, and professionals who are convinced that "scientific research on violent video games clearly shows that such games are causally related to later aggressive behavior in children and adolescents."

Signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 but challenged in court before it could take effect, the bill sought to ban the sale or rental of "violent video games" to children. A "violent" game was defined as a "game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." Under the law, retailers that sold such games would be subject to a $1,000 fine.

The bill would also have required "violent" video games to bear a two-inch-by-two-inch sticker with a "solid white '18' outlined in black" on their front covers. That's more than twice the size of the labels that currently adorn game-box covers and display the familiar Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) rating.

In 2007, a circuit court judge struck down the law as unconstitutional but admitted he was "sympathetic to what the legislature sought to do." Last year, an appellate court judge backed up the original ruling. Months before the appellate court's decision, in an appearance on GameSpot's HotSpot podcast, Yee predicted that the dispute would be pushed to the Supreme Court.

514 Comments

  • SuperYeti22

    Posted Jul 30, 2010 9:09 pm GMT

    And I hear that in Canada, one of the countries with the LOWEST homicide rates, you can play any violent game that you want. Get a clue, Mr. Yee.

  • KaizerJinn

    Posted Jul 25, 2010 6:06 pm GMT

    glad i'm over 21yrs. x^D

  • KaizerJinn

    Posted Jul 25, 2010 6:05 pm GMT

    LMAO! i personally dont believe thos will solve our problem, only hender it at best... again the government focus on the wrong thing for a solution.... -_-

  • bmwagner_phd

    Posted Jul 25, 2010 12:53 pm GMT

    In my experience both growing up and as a parent I have found one common thread in violent children and it isn't video games, music, or video. It is poor parenting. If you teach a child right from wrong at an early age, spend time with them watching their TV and even playing their games then you can communicate to them the difference between real life and fiction. That said, there are games that I don't let my 8 and 5 year olds play. This is NOT because I think it will turn them into murderers but because the content is too mature for them. My decision not the goevernment's!!! The truth is they are learning far more about violence, prejudice and crime from the other kids they know. By spending time with them I've earned their trust to ask me and believe me over other kids.

    I guess this is a long-winded way of saying "If you teach your children right from wrong then no video game is going to influence them in real life. If a simple video game CAN influence your child then they were going down that road anyway."

  • SuperYeti22

    Posted Jul 24, 2010 6:37 pm GMT

    Hey ppl, I think most of us made a mistake. I think there is more to this than M-Rated games.

    A "violent" game was defined as a "game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." So I'll have to be 18+ to get CoD, Command and Conquer, Counter Strike, Ghost Recon: Future Soldier, Alan Wake, Tekken, Street Fighter, Burnout Paradise, Motorstorm, Blur, Star Wars TFU, The Old Republic, WoW, Monster Hunter Tri, and in the Ratchet games, you can have the Dan skin which makes you look like a real human (RIP Dan Johnson), so you can kill people in Ratchet. And those Lego games, when you kill a lego human enemy, they fall apart, and see there lego peices flying everywhere, so that's dismemberment, so I'll have to be 18+ to buy a Lego game

  • twentymooseman

    Posted Jul 24, 2010 1:47 pm GMT

    F*CK THIS SH*T!!! What the F*CK is this country coming to? This is government sponsored censorship, which last time I checked, is against the first amendment. Let parents raise their kids. I am ashamed that my state government is getting behind this abomination. This law won't even affect me by the time it could be passed, but it's an egregious abuse of power.

  • xatman911

    Posted Jul 23, 2010 2:25 pm GMT

    This is like asking farmers to do a detectives work in a criminal case. Get proper people who understand games decide gaming laws.

  • Threesixtyci

    Posted Jul 23, 2010 11:21 am GMT

    Given that most parents, today, grew up with Nintendo and Playstation, I don't see why any of this is necessary. Seems to me, the grand parents are the one's who are pushing this... And should be too old to have kids, anyway. They're out of touch, are in positions of power, and want votes....

  • 24k_Solid_Gold

    Posted Jul 23, 2010 8:54 am GMT

    This whole law is a down right insult to the ESRB, and all the work that they do. I truely hope that this law never passes.

  • RaddaRaddaRadda

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 11:55 pm GMT

    @Inconnux

    So if it's your job as a parent to decide what your kids do and don't play, what say you in defense of those parents who aren't doing their job and don't monitor what their children are playing?

    When you compare it to MPAA ratings for movies, this isn't that different. It's forcing game shops to enforce selling practices they should probably already be enforcing already.

    And as much as I try to see something wrong with this sort of law, I just can't find it. I don't want my kids sneaking off to some ignorant or careless video game retailer and getting their hands on a game I don't want them playing.

  • azizex6666

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 8:36 pm GMT

    if all these politicians played these so called "violent" games, senate and congress would be a much better place.
    and IMHO kids now a days are a lot smarter than these politicians anyway.

  • frankblack789

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 8:12 pm GMT

    i hope this passes. violent video games are for adults, not for children. end of story. there shouldn't even be a debate.

  • 6h05tly

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 2:33 pm GMT

    I have nothing against this, but this age-old debate on violent videogame laws should have been resolved, say years ago. It's true that back in the early 90's that this became a huge concern (as with the comics medium back in the 50s) and even though the ESRB rating system formed shortly after, ESA continues to revise and tweak it to better ensure the consumer, and non-gamers buying games, details of that specific game's content. Even though this will remain as a debate political-wise, some of us who disagree with the subject will have to accept it. Like I said, this violent gaming law/bill/whatever should have been a done deal by now (my opinion of course.)

  • Hydrolix

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 1:24 pm GMT

    Once again I say that it is not the government's job to parent kids regardless of whether their own parents are doing their jobs. I've got an idea. Maybe if you don't have time to invest in seeing what your kids are up to then perhaps you don't have kids.

  • scryren

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 10:57 am GMT

    Stores won't sell M rated games to minors anyway. Stop wasting our money.

  • lock445

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 10:09 am GMT

    Any rating system is bullchit. It ALL DEPENDS ON THE PERSON. NO ONE can generalize content that is appropriate for a certain audience. Consider the facts: There will always be 9-year olds playing Halo online, and there will always be middle-aged religious extremist 50-year olds who won't allow themselves to play violent games.

    In any case, the rating system is bull, it doesn't work, and who cares?
    Minors don't buy the violent games at retail themselves anyways! Their parent comes with, an older sibling comes, or they purchase it on the internet, So- a 13 year old is found jacking off to porn, and he also learns about the atrocities and war crimes during WWII in school, yet he's not allowed to play Halo, an M-rated game with aliens using "energy swords" and dieing in their green and blue blood.

    either way=
    The government must leave the public alone to whatever entertainment they wish for. It IS a free country.

  • lock445

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 9:59 am GMT

    The government is afraid that children will do this: a 9 year old boy ran around the neighborhood using his blue tiger bling ak-47 and head-shotted everyone walking on the sidewalk. 5 dead pwned people later, the kid calls in a predator missile to a heavily populated public park, giving him a triple kill. The kid then knifed my window and threw in some C4 and detonated it. He then racked up 11 kills and called in a chopper gunner. He was sabotaging the entire neighborhood. With a 25/0 K/D he proceeded to call in a Tactical Nuke, annihilating the entire neighborhood.

  • SuperYeti22

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 9:49 am GMT

    And to you stupid politicians, ask yourself this. Have you ever thought about that video games didn't cause violence, in fact that it was the other way around? There was violence since the dawn of humanity. If there was no such thing as violence, there would be no war in Iraq, no 9/11, no WW2, no terrorists, no executions, no murderers, OJ Simpson wouldn't have killed his wife, there would be no nukes, John Lennon wouldn't have been shot, there would've been no Hitler no Saddam Hussein, no Jeffery Dahmer, no Gordan Northcott, there wouldn't have been gladiators in ancient Rome. Violence runs deep within the human race, video games didn't cause violence. Even if video games and movies don't exist, there would still be violence. There always has, is, and always will be violence.

  • SuperYeti22

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 9:36 am GMT

    CONTINUING FROM LAST POST:
    I know a lot of good people who play violent games, and there are a lot of serial killers that don't play violent games at all! When people kill others, there are only two reasons why: 1) They was raised badly as kids. 2) They have some kind of mental disorder. And they're doing us to "protect" kids under 18, which is really the opposite. I remember my bro and my best friends would come over to my appartment, and we would play Halo, Gears, Crackdown, Resistance, GTA. We had a lot of fun, and thats what we did most of the time. We're off to college now, and we still play through Xbox Live and PSN. Violent video games brought us gamers together. Without those violent games, what would we do? Madden NFL? Hell no. Go outside? We lived in the city, and it rained like crazy. Play with toy lightsabers? We're not 8 anymore. Board games? Please be joking. These violent games brought all of us gamers together, and that's how we had fun. Mr. Yee, PLEASE do us all a favor and keep your filthy hands to your self, but more importantly, off of our 1st ammendment rights and off of our GAMES!

  • SuperYeti22

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 9:36 am GMT

    Video game violence is not funny! I've seen kids playing Halo and they ran around shooting covenants with laser rifles and energy swords, and after Gears, I saw them chainsawing through aliens and rocket launchers and attacked the Giant Enemy Crab's weak point for maximum damage IN REAL LIFE! Imagine all the lives that would've been saved if Jack the Ripper didn't play GTA4, or if Hitler and Saddam Hussein didn't play CoD, or if Gordon Northcott didn't play Heavy Rain, or if Jeffery Dahmer didn't play Fallout 3, or if those collesseum gladiators of ancient Rome didn't play God of War. Or if Julius Ceaser's assassins didn't play Assassin's Creed. Or imagine if those dinosaurs didn't play Turok... Seriously, Mr. Stupid, er I mean, Mr. Yee, please do us a favor and shut the f*** up. I think that parents should step up and start raising their own kids, rather than let games raise their kids. Its just a game, its not serious. Everyone should be allowed to play whatever game they want to play, but learn to turn it off sometimes. And this is violating our first ammendment rights. And I played M-Rated games since I was 7.

  • leeko_link

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 9:28 am GMT

    To not let minor buy violent games is one thing, but buying it for them is another. The retail store had already handle the rating situation, parents need to handle the responsibility, if they bought a violent game for their kids to play, they need to take full responsibility for their kids behavior whether good or bad.

  • monson21502

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 9:26 am GMT

    they dont really care. they just want to put extra taxes on the games so they can get more money. i live in MD. i they did the same thing with cigarettes. they start out with removing them from tv ads and road signs. then they slip in all we will raise the price to help the young to not start. and when that doesnt work they still raise them higher and higher!!! meanwhile ive been trying to quit smoking and the stoping aid isnt covered by the goverment. the goverment is very greedy and dont really care how bad games are to the youth. they just want a bigger part of this billion dollar a year game. thats all is this is about

  • SuperYeti22

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 9:26 am GMT

    Its been scientifically proven right here that violent games are mostly harmless, and they're still at it? What's wrong with people?

  • dagaroth

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 9:17 am GMT

    This kind of thing is exactly what we DON'T need now. Even a game like Civilization Revolution features killing, and that's rated E10 under current ESRB. If this passes, it'll just be another reason to be embarrassed by our government's attempts to pass blame or violence from nature or nurture to media, even though they're not connected

  • PuppetMaster786

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 8:22 am GMT

    i agree, but still parents will buy those games for their kids

  • krytorii

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 8:14 am GMT

    I agree with their ideals of stopping violent media getting into kids hands. In the UK selling games or films with a 12, 15, or 18 age rating to those under said age is illegal, and most shops have a policy of not selling it to people they think are going to give it to kids.

    In several stores they go by the EU rating, which is stricter than the UK ones but not a legal requirement.

    As for the sticker, a bit over the top size-wise, but I dint know how big they are already on USA games. I think they should also extend this to films if it applies to games.

    Also, I've not once seen a book with a content rating, despite reading some stuff that isnt exactly child friendly.

  • brendanhunt1

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 7:28 am GMT

    but guns are ok?

  • pamplinas322

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 7:21 am GMT

    I guess the mafia, hitler WW1 and WW2 are all due to video games. Violence is in our nature, is not learned from. Hell even children's cartoons have violence.

  • Zerabp

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 6:11 am GMT

    @gonzalezj1
    Exactly.

  • Zerabp

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 6:10 am GMT

    Hooray for Nevada not joining this idiocy!!!!!!!! Sucks for the peeps in those states, though I have a feeling it's just going to get struck down again since it's completely BS and not remotely constitutional.

  • gonzalezj1

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 5:04 am GMT

    I would just like to point out that there is no law in any state in the US that bars minors from watching 'R' rated movies in the theaters or buying them from a store on DVD.
    The rules that do exist were put in place by the theaters and the stores - not the government.
    Just sayin'.

  • Ninpo187

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 4:02 am GMT

    It seems worth mentioning that most youth violence is perpetrated by the lowest socioeconomic groups (i.e. kids who can't afford video games). I could argue that if these kids had something to do with their free time (i.e. video games) they wouldn't get themselves into so much trouble. While most parents wouldn't object to their children playing violent games, I suspect many would object to taking time away from their obligations and responsibilities so they can chauffeur their kid to the game store and hold their hand when they buy the game. A lot of kids are going to miss out on a lot of great experiences simply because their parents don't have the time to constantly facilitate the purchase of games.

  • sircyrus

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 3:05 am GMT

    @SuperYeti22
    "I don't really agree with you there. Its not a matter of how old they are, but how mature they are. Immature people who can't tell the diference between right/wrong and games/reality shouldn't play. But people who ARE mature enough to handle it should be allowed to play it."

    And I agree with you, but how would the shops determine the maturity level of a customer? They can't judge that, so that's where this kind of bill becomes useful.

    If someone is underage but mature enough to handle the game, they can ask a parent to either buy it or to accompany them to purchase it. Being a mature individual, they shouldn't have a problem with that, since they'll be able to understand why that restriction is in place (like requiring a guardian when going to R-rated movies).

    If they aren't mature enough, or if their parent/guardian does not want them playing violent games, they will be unable to purchase it. Which is what this law is for, to prevent sales to those not mature enough for the content.

    I don't see why people would have issues with that. It wouldn't violate any economic freedoms because the content has been rated above their age group. It's no more a violation of those freedoms than refusing to sell pornography to someone who is underage, even though that person may actually already be sexually active. It's deemed inappropriate for that age group as a whole, it doesn't take into account individual maturity because there's no way to measure that.

  • MadJax

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 2:17 am GMT

    In theory and on paper, I agree with this law. Of course in practice it will fail horribly and once again games will get the blame, but at least they are trying to restrict minors access to games with violent content. Of course you are aware that in typically stupid move thanks to ignorant soccer mums, that nudity and sex will be more heavily censored than hardcore violence...

  • Kfoss

    Posted Jul 22, 2010 12:10 am GMT

    even with all the hubub the problem remains as to how can any state can determine whats "violent content", are they gonna slap this crazy ass sticker on any M rated product or are they gonna rewite the whole system...and who's to say who gets to have a say, is it each individual state or is this gonna have to go to the FCC ... its ridiculous really, and considering that they just struck down the whole "fleeting expletives" law, i would think that this thing does not stand a chance

  • Gelugon_baat

    Posted Jul 21, 2010 9:30 pm GMT

    schnarr mentioned a USA Secret Service study, done together with the USA Department of Education. Here is the PDF of the report. Sobering stuff there.

  • gamerpipe

    Posted Jul 21, 2010 8:05 pm GMT

    so attacking, maiming , dismembering , sexually assaulting an image of non-human being such as a bear zombie. would be ok with the law? Expect more naughty bear and zombie games if the law succeeded.



    it is like minors are stupid, if they see bear getting maimed they don't imagine it can be human. violence have different reasons . and movies, news, TV, politicians,schools spewing more violent ideas into minors than games can do.



    I guess Senator Yee's next bill is to censor anti-government materials from Google search.

  • Blue-Sky

    Posted Jul 21, 2010 7:47 pm GMT

    Most retailers deny the sale of R-rated movies and Parent advisory music without the law. So why should there be one for video games? The last FTC report claims that 70% of retailers denied the sale of M-rated games to minors. The ones that did, were minor ma and pa shops. Which this law will hardly reach. There is clearly a publication bias behind this bill. It accomplishes nothing but chip away at our freedom of expression.

  • chingchow48

    Posted Jul 21, 2010 7:17 pm GMT

    guys they arent banning all violent video games there are banning the sale of M rated games to minors... which i thought was already the rules... atleast thats how it is in Canada... your under the care of your parents so they can buy them for you... this is coming from a minor... like people come on! This is common sense... do you see minors getting into R rated movies? Normally no... same rules should be extended to Video games in my opinion

  • Arcterran

    Posted Jul 21, 2010 7:01 pm GMT

    What we really need is parents ACTUALLY INFORMED of the uses of the ESRB, its there for a reason

    I would just love to see parents "say no", sure the kid will whine about not playing GTA (or whatnot), but really, this wouldnt be an issue if parents realized that "No" is a powerful word, and actually had a better sense of what is appropriate for their child...unfortunatley this is not the case...

    and on the political side of things....although I am politically conservative to the extreme at times (here comes the flames...look liberals I'm not interested in debating politics on Gamespot ok? Games sure! thats what this site is about! Now, with that out of the way...) both Republicains and Democrats and some inbetween have been pushing this so dont bame it on a particular ideology or party.

    the law is "redundant" (for lack of a better word or term) and unnesscary in my opinion

  • bleedgreen2-1-5

    Posted Jul 21, 2010 6:52 pm GMT

    there is 2 sides to the parents role in this issue:
    Maybe parents know that theyre kids are mature enough to handle these games? It dosent make a person a bad parent if they buy a minor a m rated game, it just shows the faith they have in their child not trying to emulate the game after all it is not reality and shouldnt be treated that way.

    on another side, this issue was probably brought up when a child did something bad and instead of taking the blame (or parents taking the blame) they point the finger at movies and games because no one ever wants to have the finger pointed at themselves. They probably feel thier kids dont do nothing wrong and when they do it HAD to be because of a bad influence whether its a person movie or videogame.

  • RockySquirrel

    Posted Jul 21, 2010 6:37 pm GMT

    Solution... if a minor gets an "A" in English and an "A" in Math the previous school term, that minor can buy any bleeding game in the store...

  • rusty2win57

    Posted Jul 21, 2010 6:23 pm GMT

    @justinscales
    The last line of your post is where my issue lies. It is NOT under any circumstances, the governments responsibility to filer/censor/regulate what video games kids play. It is just one more thing this whole "government knows best" regime has added to its agenda. I prefer to NOT spend my money, paying for a bunch of lawyers to come up with some law, so the kids next door doesn't buy GTA. It is already an M rated game and they check ID, isn't that enough? This is just more B.S. spending. I live in one of the states that is on board with this, which is even more disgusting.

  • Zloth2

    Posted Jul 21, 2010 5:39 pm GMT

    @crunchb3rry,

    Yee's end game is to get on TV and tell all those parents how he is looking out for the children. The law won't make it, everyone knows that. But fighting for it earns Yee political points. And guess who is paying for all these court appearances? This is just a sleezy way to get the taxpayers to pay for your political advertisements.

    Odd that the states listed are mostly red states. This has been attracting democrats and republicans alike up until now.

  • darkcomedian

    Posted Jul 21, 2010 5:03 pm GMT

    If they're going to worry about something as trivial as video games I would rather have them try to fix game ratings so the ESRB (and MPAA for that matter) aren't so clearly bias against sexuality over violence.

  • mario-nin-freak

    Posted Jul 21, 2010 4:50 pm GMT

    Good idea, but the law needs re-done.

  • scotwolf

    Posted Jul 21, 2010 4:49 pm GMT

    i have played video games for 35+ years many of them violent, i also like to watch war films, westerns, horror movies and it has not turned me into satanist murderer.
    the politicians have always tried to blame something,take the 70/80s look at the dirty harry or spaghetti westerns i watched as a kid or the punks and heavy metal fans with long hair (i was one).they have been blaming video games and rock music for as long as i can remember.
    now i agree there must be a guidline/law to stop young ones buying violent or sexual stuff but we don't need nanny state controlling everything.

    i feel the laws and rating seem to work fine,but lets be honest many parents are buying their kids these games(just go on xbox live and play and 18 rated game and see how many young teens are playing.

    most normal decent people know there playing a game not actually killing people and can watch a movie without the need to act out what happened. the politicians uk/us need to look at national problems, law and order, education,poverty, jobs, immigration, afghanistan etc and maybe get parents to check what games they buy their kids and that they are appropiate
    i don't like censorship and love free speech and what happened to common sense!!
    rant over

  • strangebill

    Posted Jul 21, 2010 4:29 pm GMT

    i dont agree with this in any way but if they have to do it they should lower it to something more reasonable like 15 or 16

  • crunchb3rry

    Posted Jul 21, 2010 4:18 pm GMT

    I don't know about this Yee idiot, but the stores near me card for games just fine. I just don't get what Yee's endgame is. Punishment for stores that sell games to minors, or banning them from being sold in stores to begin with?

  • SoetSout

    Posted Jul 21, 2010 4:14 pm GMT

    just wondering, but in these states there are proly more then 100 channels, and these are easily accessable by children, what is gona be done against TV? even some of the cartoon shows can be seen as violent... DBZ for example, that would have to be banned. medabots aswel. and almost half the other shows on cartoon channels.... if something is animated or designed then its less of a threat on a childs morale then a live action film..

    but then again... whats the point we state this? Majority of the people on this site are against it. and the best part is nobody that can make a difference will read it..

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!