assembly-bill-1179

Latest

  • California AG and developers sound off over bill facing Supreme Court

    by 
    Ben Gilbert
    Ben Gilbert
    05.03.2010

    In a statement released by the International Game Developer's Association recently, the group called California's controversial game bill "oppressive censorship, singling out one form of expression based only on popular myth and biased research." The response came just days after the US Supreme Court decided to allow California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger's appeal to review the bill on a federal scale, though it's been ruled unconstitutional multiple times in his state (not to mention the similar bills in other states that have also been shot down repeatedly). We reached out to the California Attorney General's office to find out why it's pursuing a bill that's been plagued by overrulings, and were told, "All of those courts held that it is up to the US Supreme Court to decide whether extremely violent material can be treated the same as sexually explicit material under the First Amendment when it comes to minors. This means that we had to ask the Supreme Court to extend the law, something the lower courts were not willing to do." We further pressed for why it's targeting video games over films, television, and other entertainment mediums. A representative responded, "There is a growing body of social science that has identified violent video games as being especially harmful to children given the interactive nature of video games, and the FTC conducted investigations that showed it was easier for minors to buy Mature-rated video games than it was to get into R-rated movies." However, the IGDA's statement contends "Violence is conveyed in explicit ways on television, in print media, via the Internet, and in film. All of these platforms constitute speech protected by the First Amendment of the United States Constitution." The piece also states the association's position that it remains staunchly against "censorship of expressive media in all forms" but points out that it's especially against politicians using that censorship "for political gain." The appeal could see its first hearing as early as this October, when the Supreme Court begins its next term. [Via GamePolitics]

  • US Supreme Court to weigh California game law

    by 
    Ben Gilbert
    Ben Gilbert
    04.26.2010

    [Laura Padgett] The US Supreme Court today announced that it will consider an appeal by California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger regarding the sale of violent video games to minors in the state. This marks the first time the federal court has been involved in a video game-related case. The California bill backed by the Schwarzenegger has seen many, many, many ups and downs over the course of its five-year life span, going from a fledgling bill just waiting for the right signature to a chronically reputed source of frustration for the head of state; and most recently failing in California's Ninth Circuit Court. But as the governor is known to do, he returned once again, fulfilling his promise to bring Assembly Bill 1179 to the highest US court, reports Reuters. Entertainment Software Association president and CEO Mike Gallagher commented in a press release on the Supreme Court's decision to see the case, called "Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants" (number 08-1448), saying, "Courts throughout the country have ruled consistently that content-based regulation of computer and video games is unconstitutional." He hopes that "the Court will reject California's invitation to break from these settled principles by treating depictions of violence, especially those in creative works, as unprotected by the First Amendment." If the appeal is overturned, the law would require more stringent labeling requirements of violent games sold in California, as well as the threat of a $1,000 fine for each game sold by a retailer to a minor illegally. Historically, US Supreme Court rulings have been used to set precedent for other cases. In so many words, should the appeal be overturned, the Court's ruling could affect similar court decisions in other states. The earliest the appeal would be seen is in the Supreme Court's next term, which begins in October.