Please support Game Informer. Print magazine subscriptions are less than $2 per issue
Yee: Supreme Court Put The Interests Of Corporate America Before Children
After the U.S. Supreme Court shot down California state senator Leland Yee's proposed law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors, the disappointed Democrat from San Francisco went on the offensive.
"Unfortunately, the majority of the Supreme Court once again put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children," Yee said. "As a result of their decision, Wal-Mart and the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids' mental health and the safety of our community. It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children."
Saying the courts placed profit margins above the rights of parents makes for a great sound byte, but it completely ignores the fact that mothers and fathers still have jurisdiction over the media their children are allowed to watch or play. If a parent doesn't want his or her child to play Dead Space or Grand Theft Auto, they can explain to the child that he or she isn't mature enough to handle the content and recommend they choose another game with the appropriate ESRB rating. I know it sounds crazy, but it's an ancient technique passed down from generations that the historians refer to as "parenting."
In making his case to the court of public opinion, Yee also referenced to the dissenting opinion of Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the two judges who unsuccessfully voted to uphold the ban. "California's law imposes no more than a modest restriction on expression, Breyer wrote. "The statute prevents no one from playing a video game, it prevents no adult from buying a video game, and it prevents no child or adolescent from obtaining a video game, provided a parent is willing to help. All it prevents is a child or adolescent from buying, without a parent's assistance, a gruesomely violent video game of a kind that the industry itself tells us it wants to keep out of the hands of those under the age of 17.
"In my view, the First Amendment does not disable government from helping parents make such a choice here – a choice not to have their children buy extremely violent, interactive video games, which they more than reasonably fear pose only the risk of harm to those children."
Once again, we refer back to the ancient art of parenting. The freedoms our constitution affords us includes the right to tell your child "no."
[Source: GamePro]
I’d like to ask you to support Game Informer’s continued coverage of games with a subscription. For less than two dollars per issue, we mail you a full year of 10 print magazines, each with cover stories and preview features filled with exclusive details about the most exciting upcoming games. We profile and interview game creators. We look back on the rich history of gaming, and we celebrate what’s next.
Here on the website, we offer much of our content for free, including game reviews, daily news, videos, event coverage, and more – all with minimal ads.
We do so with a small editorial team, alongside contributing paid writers from around the world – over 65 individuals from 9 countries around the world, just in the last couple of years.
It’s not possible without support.
In a time when game makers and games coverage have faced hard struggles and layoffs, the future of this 30+ year magazine and community is at risk. Our new standalone magazine subscription is the number one way you can keep us alive – and we believe you’ll get a pretty fantastic gaming magazine in your mailbox every few weeks for your trouble.
Thank you.
