ferrarimanf355
Bullets QB



- Joined
- Feb 15, 2004
- Posts
- 4,724
... for now at least. Assemblyman Yee is threatening to reintroduce it next year. Stay tuned.
From the San Francisco Chronicle.
For anybody that is going to say, "Ehhh, I don't mind, it won't harm me anyway" (which appears to be a good chunk of you fellas), may I remind you that such a line of logic nearly destroyed comic books?
From the San Francisco Chronicle.
DATELINE: Sacramento
BODY:
Two bills aimed at keeping violent video games out of the hands of minors were defeated during their first legislative test on Tuesday.
While the author said he would try again to win approval, members of the Arts and Entertainment committee said they were deeply concerned about the bills, suggesting they would restrict free speech and open up retailers to frivolous lawsuits.
Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, tried to persuade committee members to approve the bills by showing a brief clip from some of the video games he hopes to regulate.
The images included a person shooting and beating a police officer, and setting the scene on fire.
"I think your motives are very pure, and I tell you, I watched the video and found it deeply disturbing," said Assemblywoman Rebecca Cohn, D-Saratoga. "But you are biting around the edges of the First Amendment, which we need to protect."
The primary bill, AB1792, would have prohibited selling to minors any video game in which the person playing the game virtually commits realistic and serious criminal injury to human beings in a "manner that is especially heinous, atrocious or cruel."
That bill received 5 "yes" votes and 4 "no" votes. It needed seven affirmative votes to get out of the 13-member committee.
The second bill, AB1793, would have required retailers to display any game with an "M" for mature rating out of reach of children. Video games are rated under a voluntary system, including age recommendations and content descriptors. That bill was defeated on a 3-4 vote.
Representatives of the video game industry and retailers said not only do they believe the bills may be unconstitutional, but holding stores liable if video games are not separated could open them up to a barrage of lawsuits.
"What if an (adult) customer picks up a game and then puts it down somewhere else in the store?" asked Pamela Boyd Williams, vice president of the California Retailers Association. "I can't be responsible for something done by someone who is not an employee."
Yee said he was willing to work out the issues with opponents and members of the committee, but most members said that while they agreed that the video games were over the line, it was not their place to regulate them.
"No one should play this video game," said Assemblyman Tony Strickland, R-Moorpark (Orange County). "I commend the author for bringing the issue forward. But I think what we need is for people not to buy these types of games, and then the industry won't market them."
E-mail Lynda Gledhill at lgledhill@sfchronicle.com.
For anybody that is going to say, "Ehhh, I don't mind, it won't harm me anyway" (which appears to be a good chunk of you fellas), may I remind you that such a line of logic nearly destroyed comic books?

Last edited:
