Yourbudget deficit continues to grow by leaps and billions, and voters are tellingyou to stick your plan for closing part of the gap in your ear. What's the nextlogical move, state of California?
Continuedefending a law aimed at stopping children from buying violent video games -litigation that's already cost the state close to $400,000.
That'sthe state's tab so far in a lawsuit the Video Software Dealers Associationfiled after a 2005 bill sponsored by Sen. Leland Yee, TheSacramento Bee reports. The attorney general's office has until the end oftoday to decide whether to continue the case, which the state has lost so farin U.S. District Court and before the 9th U.S. Court of Appeals.
According to theassociation's Web site, seven states and two local governments have passedsuch legislation and the trade group is actively involved in eight lawsuits.It's filed a friend-of-the-court brief in the ninth case.
Theassociation's take: Such laws interfere with minors' First Amendment rights.
That onecould be a wobbler legally. Courts long have ruled that states can regulateminors' access to materials as long as that regulation doesn't also restrict adults.
Theassociation's second claim is downright laughable: "The association'sadvocacy is propelled by the recognition that video games and other forms ofentertainment can educate, amuse, inspire, challenge, and bring people togetherand that society is invigorated if individuals and families can decide forthemselves, without the interference of government, what they shall see, read,hear, and play."
In thecase of California'slaw, you have to wonder exactly what the association considers education, amusementand inspiration.
Yee'sbill is aimed at video games that depict humans being killed, maimed, sexuallyassaulted or tortured. That's probably not the type of education, amusement andinspiration most parents want their children to receive. And most people don'tconsider bondage and family bonding to be one and the same.
Still,there are systems in place to help parents decide if a game is appropriate fortheir children.
TheEntertainment Software Board already labels video games. It's even worked inrecent months to improve what some in Congress thought were vaguedescriptions. Additional warnings are posted in stores, and the the ESRB Web site has asearchable database that consumers can check out before shopping.
And ifYee's bill is aimed at stopping minors from playing violent games withoutparental permission, it's difficult to see how it would achieve that goal.There's always a friend's house.
There'salso the danger that banning teens from buying games would make them all themore attractive. If the adults don't want me to have it, then that's exactlywhat I must have.
As forthe alleged connection between video games and violence, the one that allowsYee to say his bill would "save children": Research shows mixedresults. One recent study of studies suggesting personality is a big factor inwhether people who play violent games become violent themselves.
So whatwill California have for its $300,000 if it presses on to the U.S. SupremeCourt - and that tab will climb if it does.
It willhave a law not needed because there already are numerous ways for parents tokeep their kids away from violent games. That doesn't sound like a goodinvestment of taxpayer money right now.
