Because Hearsay and Unfounded Conjecture Justify It….

California, despite being a hotbed of game developers, seems hellbent on alienating those large studios inside the state.  From the SCOTUS case Schwarzenegger vs. EMA, to Senator Lee, and now a repeat attempt by Sen. Joe Baca to add warning labels to games.

According to IndustryGamers, this is Baca’s second attempt at adding warning labels to video games, as the first attempt in 2009 died in the House.  While the exact text of the bill isn’t available yet, it’s fairly safe to assume that it’s pretty similar to the 2009 version.  In that version, the warning would read:

WARNING: Excessive exposure to violent video games and other violent media has been linked to aggressive behavior.

Because clearly–there is no evidence to the contrary, or that enough of the studies conducted to attempt to link games and violent behavior have shown at best, a correlation, not casual , relationship between the two. I know every new media has to have it’s day as the bane and inevitable cause of the downfall of society, but gaming is going on what, 10 years of oppressive attempts.  California, go find something more beneficial to do than waste tax payer money on pointless legislation.  Personally, I’m getting pretty annoyed with all the conjecture, intentional manipulation of the facts (and omission), purposefully misrepresenting outcomes to push through legislation for no reason other than some antiquate ideal from the 1940s that anything the breaks even minutely from the status quo or makes you slightly uncomfortable must be destroyed.  

Sorry, /endrant 

Via IndustryGamers: U.S. Representative Brings Back Game Warning Labels

SCOTUS CA Video Game Law – Where we stand

Update: 4:31pm EST

Flurry of posts about the proceedings this morning:
The entire transcript from the Supreme Court Website: PDF
Game Politics (strikes me as somewhat biased) take: Games Take Over Supreme Court

And Also from GamePolitics – a round-up of all the other gaming sites posting SCOTUS stuff.  The list from Game Politics (below) is pretty long – this has been a pretty big deal, methinks.


Wall Street Journal


Washington Post

MTV Multiplayer


As such an event is kind of a big deal, I figured I’d take 5minutes out to Post.

As of 1:42pm EST, I can honestly say, I know nothing more than I did the previous 6 months leading up this…ha.
BUT Regardless — for the issue at hand if your unfamiliar, check out Kotaku for a great breakdown or read my previous post – a letter to the editor of the Pittsburgh Post Gazette (which was never run):

 All You Need To Know About This Week’s Violent Video Game Case In The U.S. Supreme Court

Then, responses from how the different parties thought it went, again also from Kotaku:
Both Sides React To The California Game Law Supreme Court Hearing

I would keep an eye on, as they planning on posting their perspective on how the case went, as they had someone present.  Chances are they will be one of the first to relay the outcome of the case to the rest of us.

Overall Feeling from the Rogue Gamer – Cautiously Optimistic