October 2005: California Governator Ahhnold signs a bill making it illegal to sell “violent” videogames to minors. The targeted games included those “in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being.”
December 2005: Before the law can take effect, a federal judge issues a temporary restraining order against it. Judge Ronald Whyte writes that “games are protected by the First Amendment and … plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their argument that the Act violates the First Amendment.”
August 2007: The same U.S. District Court judge officially strikes the law down, ruling that “the 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.”
February 2009: Responding to an appeal filed by Gov. Schwarzenegger, a federal appeals court agrees with Judge Whyte and refuses to reinstate the law. The unanimous ruling finds that “the government may not restrict speech in order to control a minor’s thoughts.”
May 2009: Along with California’s Attorney General (the once-and-future Governor Jerry “Moonbeam” Brown), Ahhnold petitions the U.S. Supreme Court to toss out the appeals court ruling and restore the 2005 law.
Arnold Schwarzenegger seems really, really intent on protecting society from the violent ravages of “Grand Theft Auto IV.” We should all applaud his persistence, if not his level of Constitutional literacy, right?
Right?
Am I forgetting anything? Ah, yes… Here’s the rest of the timeline
1982: Conan the Barbarian
1984: Conan the Destroyer
1984: The Terminator
1985: Commando
1987: Predator
1987: The Running Man
1990: Total Recall
1991: Terminator 2: Judgment Day
1994: True Lies
1996: Eraser
1999: End of Days
2002: Collateral Damage
2003: Terminator 3: Rise of the Machines
2010 (in production): The Expendables
Hell, even “Kindergarten Cop” included a scene of little snowflakes attacking Ahnold.
Related posts:
- Domestic-Violence Crusader Mary J. Blige Slugs Husband Mary J. Blige has cranked out another hit, but this...
- Maria Shriver Gets Called Out September 15, 2006: Gov. Schwarzenegger Signs Bill Requiring Drivers to...
- Obama Wants to Prevent Burnouts. Sometimes. President Obama gave a speech Thursday night, because he was...
- John Mellencamp Doesn’t Like Free Speech John Mellencamp is passionate about the First Amendment. So long...
- Potential Biden Campaign Slogan? “Long on Wind, Short on Memory” Poor Joe. Everybody keeps deriding the hapless old guy for...
Say what you like about Schwarzenegger, but he’s been predicting and actively trying to avoid California’s bankruptcy for at least four years.
http://gov.ca.gov/press-release/1839/
So seriously, what does a law concerning violent videogames have to do with the movies that Schwarzenegger made? No sarcasm meant, those movies may be violent, but they aren’t nearly as violent as some video games.
Well if anyone knows about violence it’s the Running Man, I mean dude from Total Recall, oh wait, the man who fought the Predator. Oh, hold on, Terminator was non-violent right? What about the sequel?
Let’s not count that new one. We all know Christian Bale is a violent misanthrope.
Apparently Arnold doesn’t get any royalties from video games that bare his likeness. If someone tried to pass a similiar for Rated-R movies, I think he might be humming a different tune.
Yes, but this is “for the children”. Everything gets a pass if it’s “for the children”…which usually also refers to the bill.
Michigan has a law very similar to the attempted law in California. It is stupid. But most of all it is annoying. If I have decided that my offspring can play a “M” game, who is the government to tell me that I am wrong.
Um, he’s also done voice-work for several videogames based upon those movies.
And it doesn’t matter which is more violent… these laws wouldn’t discriminated between videogames that are more or less violent than an Ahnuld movie. Because children just can’t handle ANYTHING… according to politicians.
In any case, the real hypocrisy is that he made he first made a career and name for himself out of bloody, violent movies with the same themes he’s condemning videogames for now.
Typical pandering to the masses by a politician. Why I am not surprised?
And look at that huge blue-stoned ring! How gauche!
california dave – i was gonna say did anyone notice his ring? lol!
Ugh. I am so over this whole mentality that the government is somehow responsible for keeping things out of ickle kiddies hands if it’s not safe for them.
If the parents decide it is a problem, then they should be actually parenting and stopping it. No video game yet can directly be given full responsiblity for any sociopathic action by a youth. Sure, it may be a trigger in some cases, but so can happy bunnies with sunshine daisies in their little paws skipping down the garden trail. You can’t predict what will cause someone to snap, no matter how much hot air Jack Thompson spews about Grand Theft or anything.
I don’t like GTA simply because I’ve always found the concept boring. But I will be damned if some lazy parent (or political types, no matter how much I like them) is going to somehow try to justify this crap by saying it’s to protect the children. You have a beef with it, YOU parent. The government shouldn’t have to play babysitter.
The problems California need to focus on are a bloated budget, corrupt politicians and out of control spending for the last 10 years. Their only solutions has been to raise taxes and spend more. Now that it has come to the breaking point they want to try and keep violent games out of kids hands???? This only goes to prove that politicians need to be brought back to reality and term limits need to be set for ALL offices.
Isn’t this a little like Ron Jeremy campaigning against porn? Or Pammy Anderson opening a steakhouse?
Oh. Never mind.
Beige – or Al Gore campaignig to save the Earth or John Edwards being paid to talk about poverty…..
Let’s not forget that many of Arnold’s movies have associated video games that include the destruction of human images.
Comes down to Viewing vs Doing it but violent tendencies must be figured out; if anything movies add the emotional component to help slake their lust.
Hey Oversneer, is that really Ahnuld in the photo? It looks like a mediocre SNL impersonation.
Of course, it may be that my monitor (or my eyesight) is finally failing me.
It’s a look-alike, MC.
Always look at the auricular folds of the ears. They’re unique to each person.
Unfortunately, the ears are not clearly shown in the top photo.
Too bad, because Ahnold has a very prominent anti-helix fold. Your helix is the outer rim of your ear, then you have a scaphal valley and then a raised anti-helix (working inwards). It’s not rare, but it is notable for an anti-helix ridge to stand proud of the helix ridge. In the second shot, you can clearly see Ahnold’s right side anti-helix (screen left).
In the two photos, I see 3 differences Ahnold is unlikely to ever surgically alter:
The model’s eyes are closer set.
Ahnold has free earlobes, the model’s are attached.
Ahnold has more prominent philtrum folds (the depression above the upper lip, running down from the nasal septum to the cupid’s bow).
Plus, the model has a few furrows between his brows which I think Conan the Vain would have botoxed out long ago.
Minnow, that creaking sound you hear is my back as I bow down to you. I might have noticed the closer set eyes…eventually.
And Ahnuld might never consider surgically altering the things you mentioned, but I’m betting dollars to doughnuts that *someone’s* had their ears done.
Pinning could explain why his anti-helix is overly raised, MC.