Something that just occured to me about the California Game Law

[Macgyvercas]

It won't pass.

Dunno. The fact that the court agreed to hear the case at all is worrisome. After all, it had already been shot down by two lower courts, so you'd think that would be enough for them to decide to blow it off.

The Supreme Court is also fairly conservative in their views...these are the people that decided that corporations qualify as individual persons, and that campaign financial donations can be unlimited from any person (and therefore any corporation). Bit concerning.

But back to the OP's question, I have no idea on how the specifics of it would work. Just that it would cause terrible, terrible damage to the video game industry.

If they are conservative, they'll back the Constitution. Remember they recently overturned a handgun ban in Chicago because it violated the Second Amendment. And this law for games is in violation of the First, so I think we'll win.

It's also entirely possible they want to lull California into a false sense of security before slamming Yee with a big fat STFU.

That's just it, though, conservatives only back the constitution insofar as it supports their views. Anything relating to the separation of church and state they try to ignore. They tend to be against the video game industry in America, so there's a good chance that they could rule that video games are not covered by the first amendment.

If they do, they are bigger idiots then I previously thought. Seriously, a 6 year old could tell you this is unconstitutional (which I guess speaks for the intelligence level or 90% of politicians).

*If I seem to be bashing politicians a lot recently, please bear in mind that midterms just ended and I'm still pissed of all the time wasted listening to the TV and radio ads*

 

[TurtleBay]

Actually, part of the discussion was that there would be no ratings board. A jury would have to decide what is violent just as juries currently decide what is obscene and pornographic.

 

[Lullabye]

I'm probably not the first person to think on this, but I haven't read it anywhere, so forgive me. The law that California is trying to pass would require games to be rated by a governmental organization. Would this be at the developer's expense or the taxpayers'? How long would the process take? Would we have a game sitting in queue for over a year before it could legally be sold (this is the government we are talking about here)?

And most importantly, what about indie games?

The ESRB isn't legally binding, so there is no reason for indie developers to even bother with it. But if this law gets passed, indie developers would technically be breaking the law if they sold the game without a rating. Even worse, without a major publishing pipeline, indie developers have no way of positively verifying the age of buyers at all, thus putting them at great legal risk should they ever get lucky and have a game become popular and, thus, visible.

And don't tell me how you already have these laws in your country and how it hasn't been a problem. Yes, I know. And I'm not arguing with you on that. But America is different. It might not happen right away, but if this law passes through the supreme court, indie games will catch the attention of the Powers That Be eventually. It just takes one idiot parent that can afford a lawyer.

On the other hand, if taxpayers have to foot the bill, it would be a viable method of government trolling to have everyone who can program submit several variations on Pong to be rated and thus create a physical DDOS attack.

It won't pass.

Yeah, if the Judges opinons are anything to go buy, its not getting through.