Ironic the man who starred and made his living off of the most violent action movies, would allow such a thing. Same man who's father was a SS soldier in Hitler's army, and once said he "admired" Hitler.

Oh wait, that explains it. All about control. All these politicians. Power/money/control.

Further proof that Arnold was in fact, an "obsolete design".

At least the law didnt go through.

Who knows? Maybe Arnold didn't even know what he was signing, or didn't care.

"Evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, internet sites or other speech-related exposures". Holy fuck, that is the most sensible thing I've ever heard in relation to violent games

They have detailed files...

@Unastheslayer:

I was saying the same thing myself! Finally someone with a brain!

Some one send that judge some flowers finally someone in power who has some brains suck on that one jack thompson.

one small step for video game rights, one giant leap for free speech.

I deem this ruling "Ultra-Good".

Yeah! Hooray! Someone with a brain!

This would be really great, and worth celebrating, if it didn't cost a SHIT TON OF TAX MONEY every time one of these bullshit laws gets proposed.
Even when we win, we lose.

System of checks and balances FTW!

He isnt the only judge with a brain. This was some of the same things said by all the other countless judges that shot down these same laws in other states.

NY, everyone is looking at you, you are next. Good job wasting taxpayers dollars on this shit that has been shot down many times in the past.

I personally want to thank the judge for a very smart ruling on the whole thing. I think as time goes on more and more people will feel this way (Lets face it most older people have never and will never understand video games) especially this generation which has grown up with them there entire lives. Video games are always a constant scapegoat for those looking to point a finger at what is to blame with todays society. Though the war is far from over, I personally take this as a win.

Fuck yeah!!! and FUCK YOU Leland Yee (and a dirty stare to the governator)!!1!!one!

"...are any more harmful than violent television, movies, internet sites or other speech-related exposures."

Of course I'm happy about this, but it makes me wonder. Is this the best way he could justify his decision? To say "hey, it's not as bad as those guys, so... oh well, fuck it, I say it's fine!"

"I was elected to lead. Not to read" - The simpson movie

@RiceBandit: The argument isn't that games are "not as bad" as other media. He's not saying that "it's fine," either. Rather, they're equivalent, and there's no reason to single out games over any other media.

Kotaku is embarassingly fickle sometimes. I made this exact argument over and over again in the threads relating to the banning of Manhunt 2 and was repeatedly and brutally shot down by people who said it was "common sense" that interactive media would have a greater impact on people... I argued that there's not even evidence of an impact, let alone one that is greater or less, but was systematically ignored.

Now a judge says it and he's an American hero. Hmmmm.

now all we need is to get rid of AO and NC-17 and things will be good (tho NC-17 doesn't apply to me Canada FTW)

@OneFreeMan: Well you dont have control over if a law goes through or not just MIGHT have something to do with it.

@Witzbold: Uhh, huh? That doesn't make any sense. The judge's decisions is based on the same argument I made. You can't disagree with my argument and agree with this judge's decision. The fact that a law is involved is irrelevant.

@Unastheslayer: I could not agree more.

@OneFreeMan: The people who shot your idea down are probably just trolls. Everyone who knows enough about gaming to know about Kotaku ought to know that violent video games doesn't = violent people.

@devilhunterx:

Damnit! You beat me to it!

Once again, it's the PARENTS responsibility to keep violent games out of thier childrens hands, not the retailers......

"evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, internet sites or other speech-related exposures."

This is the thing. If laws banned sales of the other things to minors, they would likely stand, as they consistently rule out things deemed harmful, rather than singling out something, which obviously looks more like stifling free speech rather than protection.

It's not different than not requiring seatbelts for every type of car. Those are for safety, but imagine if American made brands were exempt? It would obviously not be for safety, as American cars are not magically safer than those made in Europe or Asia.

@OneFreeMan: Ego trip anyone?

Seriously, who cares who bloody said what first. Hell a lot of us have talked about this shit way before you even started commenting with that account of yours. So whats your point?

What matters here is the fact that a stupid law that would have effected gamers in the cali region has been overturned and fellow gamers are celebrating since its one of the few times that a person in power has had the common sense to take our side.

@OneFreeMan:
Wow, it's almost like the comments on Kotaku are made by a bunch of individuals who don't necessarily agree with one another!

@OneFreeMan: People actually have to listen to a judge, and he has the power to strike down dumbassery like this law.

Don't worry though. People will come along soon enough to lambast this judge for not thinking of the children.

For the record I agree with you, and the judge.

Ka-lee-foh-nia. That is all.

Hang on why shouldn't retailers get a fine if they sell to an under age kid? If a dvd has a 18 cert it's illegal to sell it to anyone under 18. The same goes for movies in the cinema, if a game has a 18 cert then ANYONE under 18 shouldn't be allowed to buy it.

He is correct about the lack of evidence but if we want people to treat games as a serious media on par with movies shouldn't they both have the
same type of laws governing sales?

Lastly, yes parents SHOULD have a responsibility to ensure their kids does not play any game that is not suitable, but if a retailer sells a game to an underage kid the retailer should get a fine. However if a parent buys there kid an underage game they either think their kid is mature enough for the game or are just irresponsible parents.

It's not hard to look on the front and back of a game when your kid asks you to buy it them. After all I bet they look when asked to buy a movie on dvd...