Comments:California's violent video game ban law ruled unconstitutional by US Court of Appeals

Back to article

This page is for commentary on the news. If you wish to point out a problem in the article (e.g. factual error, etc), please use its regular collaboration page instead. Comments on this page do not need to adhere to the Neutral Point of View policy. You should sign your comments by adding ~~~~ to the end of your message. Please remain on topic. Though there are very few rules governing what can be said here, civil discussion and polite sparring make our comments pages a fun and friendly place. Please think of this when posting.

Quick hints for new commentators:

• Use colons to indent a response to someone else's remarks
• Always sign your comments by putting --~~~~ at the end
• You can edit a section by using the edit link to the right of the section heading

Click here to add a new comment · Add onto existing comments

The courts are destroying this country. Free speech? Bullshit! --71.190.89.16 22:33, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

I'd be the first to decry the insane brand of censorship advocated by nutters like Jack Thompson, but this seemed like a genuinely sensible law. I'm not sure where free speech comes into the rating of games by the ESRB. --128.243.253.113 10:45, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

Bad parenting shouldn't result in stifling free speech

Of course the ban is unconstitutional. People don't want kids playing M-rated games? It's the 100% responsibility of the parents to make sure their kids don't play them, ESPECIALLY if the kid can't tell the difference between fiction and reality. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 68.228.111.250 (talk • contribs)

I certainly don't think that banning violent games is a free speech violation. I think the ruling was that the law was too general and could have been used for more than just that. Anyway, kids who want violent games will find a way to get violent games, and I agree with above that the parents can do a lot more than the government. Wtachi (talk) 19:37, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

The government spending money on something like this would be a complete waste of time and effort, since if kids WANT these games, they'll find a way to get it. It really is up to the parents to deal with it, because it would be absolutely futile to stop it with government action. And you can make studies to prove basically anything when it comes to biology or psychology. Everyone underestimates children's minds anyway, they KNOW it's fake. --Gimmethegepgun (talk) 22:25, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

those silly californians

they'll ban anything if they think it's for the greater good. --Philip Laurence (talk) 22:59, 23 February 2009 (UTC)

yeah, like diesel cars wtf is up with that?--CnrFallon (talk) 18:41, 24 February 2009 (UTC)

They have a ban on diesel cars? Fephisto (talk) 11:23, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Of course

Of course banning violent games is a violation of free speech. Also, banning violent games is as futile as banning alcohol or tobacco: if they want it, they will find a way to get it. 97.124.7.61 14:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)

THE FUCK ITS UNCONSTITUTIONAL THAT THEY BAN GREAT GAMES THAT EDUMACATE OUR FELLOW CITIZENS (particularally of the ages of 13 to mid 20s) ABOUT VIOLENCE! FIRST PERSON SHOOTERS IS A GREAT WAY TO LEARN ABOUT MODERN FIREARMS OF THE MODERN AGE AND WORLD WAR II GAMES TEACH OUR CHILDREN ABOUT THE PAST. JEEZ...

What child has been harmed?

Can the authors of this nuisance bill show that even a single child was actually harmed by exposure to violent game content? The issue of violence in video games is low-hanging fruit for lazy lawmakers who want to showboat their "tireless protection of children". It's much easier to write a bill banning games than to do the hard work solving real societal problems like the collapsing economy, or a state being overrun by illegal aliens. --Phileusfogg (talk) 21:55, 30 March 2009 (UTC)

WHY IS BUSINESS PROTECTED?

It's curious that there are endless constraints on free speech that nobody attends to. We are not allowed to advocate violent overthrow of the government. Free speech? We are not allowed to use certain expletives on public TV or radio. Free speech? Children are not allowed to 'tattle' in school. Free speech? When it is the people or children who want to talk, free speech is not protected. But when it is Big Business, then suddenly the First Amendment is invoked. Restricting sale of alcohol to minors does slow down the exposure of children to alcohol! Why wouldn't restricting the sale of violence to them work to to effect the same results. Rowena Wilhelmina

Comments from feedback form - "GTA IV doesn't reward you if y..."

GTA IV doesn't reward you if you kill cops civilians, etc. Get your facts straight you ignorant whore. —71.32.113.242 (talk) 19:14, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Comments from feedback form - "I have finally gotten to see e..."

I have finally gotten to see exactly what the law states and what it is.... Also, whoever wrote this kept their neutrality in the issue at hand. —75.135.73.200 (talk) 16:04, 21 December 2010 (UTC)

DAT IS ALL FREDOOM OF SPEECH! and freedom for U.S. citizens on the amandments!! its a way of expressing your feelings. and it helps. if u r mad at something u can play a shotting game and throw the stress away by killing bitches on the game and not doing it on real life. Now i do understand that some ppl pplay too much that they obviously might be like really crazy, but its just dat they cant ban violent video games from EVERYBODY. the amandmants have all rights and written clearly for defense on NOT banning violent video games as a FREEDOM OF SPEECH!

The blame is not the parents

It's the same thing seems to tell a lie, saying that it is parents who must have control of the children it is not so. If something will harm a country is the duty of this country to eliminate such harm, those responsible for spreading terror they were exactly those game makers, they are responsible, not the parents, and if at the least they could have a little imagination and think if those things having to do with violence like we were today? It does not mean a cottage to live in family and well, but parents must also take responsibility for purchases and is not in the games, because they have no guilt that a game is just shove the child's head and she insists to have that game even if it is an eternity. Here the victims healthy parents, because they are almost forced to buy and all the fault of the companies that make these games come out and be on sale to buy, I just like to know how these game creators are after the play or to create, surely must feel like "drugged. "

Fight to stop the violence? Perhaps be part of the solution...

To make the change Senator Yee desires, be the change and support the solutions. In my case, I started a game studio focused on quality family entertainment including our first game Jerry Rice & Nitus' Dog Football. We produce products you can be happy your kids are interacting with and provide you an opportunity to play along with your kids. I recommend those against violent video games buy a copy and tell their friends to do so... then we will make more products like these.  :) A bonus would be if Obama would fix the Accredited Investor requirements so that people who wish to invest in our company would be allowed to do so... you know... support that whole "support small business" and "opportunity for wealth for all" concept he claims to believe in... www.judobaby.com