State Senator Leland Yee isn't the first person who comes to mind when we're defending video games. After all, the man has a habit of annoying the ESA with legislation restricting video game sales, and one of his laws was overturned in 2007 after the ESA called foul and constitutional violation. Still, Yee refuses to deviate from that path and continues pushing for a law that prevents kids under 18 from purchasing "ultra-violent" games.
Yet a recent interview with Los Angeles Times revealed a sensible man whose concern lies primarily with children. Over the years, his attention has moved from movies and TV to the video game industry, where his focus now sits.
I was always interested in the influence of violence on TV and in the movies on children. But what this new technology presents is really over the top. One reason is the interactive nature, the fact that you can push a button and make certain horrific things happen. If you demonstrate to a child that you can do these things, it becomes part of their repertoire for dealing with anger.
As a former child psychologist, the man is pretty damn sure hyper-violent games carry negative effects for younger audiences, though he has no intention of ever banning these violent games. Yee believes that even the most gruesome titles should be protected under the 1st Amendment, just like any other form of entertainment.
This is where some critics misunderstand me. I think video games are artful and it takes a lot of creativity to make them. I also think the interactive nature of them and the technology behind them can have great educational value.
I'm never going to be the person who stands up and says we should ban these ultra-violent video games. I'm just saying children ought not to be allowed to access them unless a parent buys it for them. Otherwise, video games are just as worthy under the 1st Amendment as movies.
Senator Yee also clarifies that his law will apply to stores only, where physical copies are bought and sold. While digital distribution becomes exceedingly popular, he has no intention of attempting to restrict Internet transactions. "Once you're dealing with regulating the Internet, that's a whole other can of worms," he explained.
Now before you ask, he did allow his children to play video games when they were growing up. Instead of letting them hole up in their rooms with the doors shut, he made sure their doors were open and their monitors were always facing the doorway. Now that's good parenting.
Will Jane Doe appreciate that the state wont let Timmy run in with the $65 she gave him for GTA XXI? no because she knows that for her the game is a nanny for her and now she has to make an extra step. Timmy will still get the game, the clerk will still get the same harassment and the manager will get the same line about how clerks like that should be fired because she was too busy talking on her bluetooth to care about her kid. Senator Yee is eager to ignore the basic facts about reality and how children come to obtain money at such an age.
People are already annoyed about having to listen to the ESRB standards, this will fail to accomplish anything and he's got his head so far in the clouds that he can't see the reality anymore with this crusader garbage.
Yay he had doors opened and paid attention to the ESRB ratings and monitored their gaming. He just proved that the existing system actually works. Meh guys like this are so far from reality that it's painful to know they're still wasting millions in taxpayer money on these things.
Yes parents should monitor what their kids play, not the state. No matter how many bills he introduces trying to choke the industry the outcome will be the same. He just wants a legacy to brag about as he seeks higher appointments like every other politician.
Like I said, he won't be able to accomplish any actual results from all this. He just wants a legacy and he doesn't care if it's a total flop.
Yee is living in another world from those people but he thinks trying to pitch some laws will change their attachment to their own kids.
http://gamepolitics.com/2010/05/11/yee-backs-kagan
He's throwing his full support to rush her into position because she has a fondness for twisting exemptions around the first amendment which means he thinks that he's found an ally to support his legacy case. A case that will fail to actually change anything but it'll make the governments a decent amount of extra cash on the side with fines which will probably be countered by the money spent on court cases.
Good to know that minions will buy the "it's for the sake of the children" bs that he's shoveling out by the truckload. Yeah. Sure. I've got a majestic island to sell also if anyone wants. /eyeroll