. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .

Nap Time!!!

Monday, August 06, 2007
You lose!

California joined the list of states who have tried and failed to impose bans on the sale of violent video games to kids. Free speech and all that. Arnie seems unhappy, but the quote doesn't quite work:
Schwarzenegger, named as a defendant in the case, said he plans to appeal the case.

"I signed this important measure to ensure that parents are involved in determining which video games are appropriate for their children," Schwarzenegger said in a written statement. "Many of these games are made for adults and choosing games that are appropriate for kids should be a decision made by their parents."
Isn't that belief somewhat at odds with the legislative "ban that which we deem inappropriate" approach? I guess one could argue that parents collectively are determining which video games are appropriate for children collectively, but that just becomes "parents involved in determining which video games are appropriate for other folks' children."

posted by Beetle Aurora Drake 8/06/2007 08:20:00 PM #
Comments (1)
. . .
Comments:
Actually, the Governator's quote makes perfect sense, given the mechanic of the law at issue (as I understand it): sale or rental to a minor is prohibited; possession by a minor is not. So the parent can buy Splatterfest VII for junior, and everything is peachy keen - junior just can't waltz in an buy it himself. (I'd love to read the final decision, but haven't been able to get a hold of it yet.)

There are of course a number of other side issues, such as the industry's attempt at self-policing. (Probably a wise move, since it undoubtedly helped the association's case. "We've already handled it" is always nice when the other side's argument involves the sky falling, the fat lady singing, and precocious younglings running amok with homicidal intent.)

There was a nice analysis a few years back, by Amar and Brownstein.
http://writ.news.findlaw.com/commentary/20040430_brownstein.html
They have a good section on the inconsistencies of prior case law. (Ginsburg v. New York, etc. etc.)
 
Post a Comment


. . .