To be fair: The law was passed during the Governator's term, and it was during the pre-OMGCalisBROKE! period.
Brown's name was only on it because he's the current governor, and so is automatically part of the precedings. He likely had little to actually say about it, though I personally don't know his position on the matter.
The kind of games that include any realistic violence or bloodshed are already rated Teen or Mature, and the sale of the latter is already legally restricted to majority-aged consumers. It is absurd to limit children from playing Pac-Man for fear of ghost-eating violence, or from Donkey Kong to protect them from the horrors of spinning in a circle and gaining a halo. These games feature violence--albeit wholly unrealistic--and would have therefore been covered under the blanket legislation, unless I misunderstood. What kind of world would this be if children were legally restricted from Donkey Kong?
The kind of games that include any realistic violence or bloodshed are already rated Teen or Mature, and the sale of the latter is already legally restricted to majority-aged consumers. It is absurd to limit children from playing Pac-Man for fear of ghost-eating violence, or from Donkey Kong to protect them from the horrors of spinning in a circle and gaining a halo. These games feature violence--albeit wholly unrealistic--and would have therefore been covered under the blanket legislation, unless I misunderstood. What kind of world would this be if children were legally restricted from Donkey Kong?
Yes, you have the right of it. Any violence, including zany cartoon violence, was covered under this law.
Comments
Brown's name was only on it because he's the current governor, and so is automatically part of the precedings. He likely had little to actually say about it, though I personally don't know his position on the matter.