Arnold Schwarzenegger's violent video game ban overturned.

[Smith_3]

A U.S. Court of Appeals on Friday has declared unconstitutional California Assembly Bills 1792 & 1793, the California "ultraviolent video games law" that sought to ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. ...... "California Assembly Bills 1792 & 1793" were commonly called the "ultraviolent video games bills" or simply "video game ban" bills. Bill 1792 banned the sales of such video games while Bill 1793 required signs explaining the regulations on said games to be placed where such were sold. Both bills were passed by the Assembly and signed by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger into law (AB 1179) on October 7, 2005.

http://en.wikinews.org/wiki/California%27s_violent_video_game_ban_law_ruled_unconstitutional_by_US_Court_of_Appeals

Good!

And also :rofl: :rofl: :rofl: :crazy:




edit: Coming to think. Terminator 2 is probably the first violent movie I ever saw (was about 12 then). I think I had paranoia for about a month afterwards.

[ReliantJ]

1. I wonder if what he'll do after his term is up

[anigbrowl]

2. Ah...you know that this was democratic legislation, yes?

Any state law has to be signed by the governor. Unless s/he feels so strongly about that s/he exercises the veto instead, the fact that a governor signs something into law tells you exactly nothing about who its political sponsors were. As it happens, this legislation was introduced and campaigned for by my State Representative...Democrat Leland Yee of San Francisco: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bills_1792_&_1793

Personally, I thought it a waste of time, as the videogame industry seems to do an OK job of rating its own products and I believe it's up to parents to make decisions about what kind of games are acceptable for their kids to play.

I can't help noticing that this information (about the Democratic origin of the law) was in your original link, but you chose to leave that out in order to make fun of Arnold Schwarzenegger. Your post is deceptive, to say the least.

[Smith_3]

3. Sorry, must have missed that.

Still think its funny though.

[crimsonblue]

4. Hmm... I haven't read much on this case.. but i'm inclined to disagree with the ruling

Society has the responsibility to protect children until they reach the age of reason. If society determines that material is harmful for children, then it may limit the material only as it affect children . This means that all materials should be legal for a person once they reach the age of reason (defined in the US as age 18 for some things, and age 21 for everything else). The government may limit what a person has access to until the person reaches the age of reason. Therefore, I disagree with the court's ruling in this manner as it relates to the limitations placed on children.