California Game Law Rejected by Supreme Court

[exfileme]

The Supreme Court has nuked the law which bans the sale of "violent" video games to minors under 18 in California.

California Game Law Rejected by Supreme Court : Read more

 

[Guest]

This is, like the Supreme Court says, no different than other media. The film industry has rating standards (PG-13, R, etc) which theaters follow, but the important difference is that it's entirely a private matter, not a government one. The California law is the equivalent of making it illegal and punishable by law to let a 15-year-old into an R rated movie. Sure, the theaters will kick you out if you try to sneak into an R rated film, and any store has the right to refuse to sell a violent video game to a minor. But it absolutely shouldn't be punishable by law.

 

[Guest]

These games and other media wind up in the hands of minors regardless of who's allowed to purchase it. It's a silly waste of time some politicians want to use for their own political gains / campaigning. If the parents dont know what their kid is doing, or whether or not those activities will have a negative impact on the child, its the parents' fault. Where did the kid get the money? Parents should be following their child's money trail regardless and acting appropriately.

 

[Guest]

These games and other media wind up in the hands of minors regardless of who's allowed to purchase it. It's a silly waste of time some politicians want to use for their own political gains / campaigning. If the parents dont know what their kid is doing, or whether or not those activities will have a negative impact on the child, its the parents' fault. Where did the kid get the money? Parents should be following their child's money trail regardless and acting appropriately.

 

[Guest]

These games and other media wind up in the hands of minors regardless of who's allowed to purchase it. It's a silly waste of time some politicians want to use for their own political gains / campaigning. If the parents dont know what their kid is doing, or whether or not those activities will have a negative impact on the child, its the parents' fault. Where did the kid get the money? Parents should be following their child's money trail regardless and acting appropriately.

 

[Guest]

[citation][nom]TwoTacoTuesdays[/nom]The California law is the equivalent of making it illegal and punishable by law to let a 15-year-old into an R rated movie. Sure, the theaters will kick you out if you try to sneak into an R rated film, and any store has the right to refuse to sell a violent video game to a minor. But it absolutely shouldn't be punishable by law.[/citation]

That's the right train of thought, but lets continue it. So with it illegal, the kid sneaks into the theater, but now the theater is getting fined because a kid snuck in. In fact the punishment becomes so harsh that the theater then stops showing R rated movies less and less often as they cannot afford security. So now the Stuidos cant make money off R rated movies and they stop making R rated movies and move on to just PG-13 flicks.

Which is what Leland Yee, D (Really a Democrat, so much for liberal!)- CA, wants for video games. Get the state to hassle retailers so harshly they turn on the developers and get them to censor their own games.

 

[wild9]

The controversial law was struck down by a 7-2 vote on a belief that it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose legal guardians and adult family members "think violent video games are a harmless pastime."

In what respect: a harmless adult pastime, a harmless child pastime or even both? I might find firing a gun with live rounds at a rusty tin-can a harmless past-time, but would it be wise to let a child do the same?

 

[Camikazi]

[citation][nom]wild9[/nom]In what respect: a harmless adult pastime, a harmless child pastime or even both? I might find firing a gun with live rounds at a rusty tin-can a harmless past-time, but would it be wise to let a child do the same?[/citation]
Seems to me the point they are making is that it's the guardians choice whether it is harmless fun or not. If the guardian thinks the violent game is fine for kids then they can let the play it if they believe it isn't good for kids they can say no. Basically it's the parents who make the decision whether the game should be played by their child and not the state or the government, and I think it's the right decision for them to keep their noses out of it. Let the parents decide if their child can play that game, that is what parents are supposed to do to begin with.

 

[glasssplinter]

So how long until porn falls under this and kids can buy it? Doesn't that stifle first amendment rights? I guess cigarettes and alcohol are next...

 

[Guest]

if they on a farm and not an idiot then yea, i know of many of my friends that was also brought up on farms, before we all were even 12 we all knew excactly how to handle a gun. our parents allowed us to go shoot when we want(daytime off course). and this gun saved my life once when a bushpig stormed at me.

but the point im bringing over is many things can be bad but that it is the parents job to ensure their child is ready for what the parent allows the child to be exposed too.

 

[Zagen30]

[citation][nom]glasssplinter[/nom]So how long until porn falls under this and kids can buy it? Doesn't that stifle first amendment rights? I guess cigarettes and alcohol are next...[/citation]

Pornography is classified as "obscenity" under law, and as such it is exempt from First Amendment protection. I read through the decision, and the justices did acknowledge that this country is much more comfortable with children seeing violence than nudity. Whether or not that's right isn't for the courts to decide; in this case, there's a lengthy history of acceptance of kids being allowed access to violent content in other media forms, and in their opinion videogames are not fundamentally different from other types of media to warrant its own set of rules and regulations.

Tobacco and alcohol are not an expression of ideas, and thus do not fall at all under the 1st Amendment's jurisdiction. Also, they have a proven history of harmful effects on children (and adults, too), whereas with videogames the known effects have not been established (if there are any; the research has been very contradictory and/or inconclusive).

 

[leper84]

I tend to agree more with Justice Thomas' view on the issue- rights for minors are reserved to their guardians. Which the Cali law is in line with. At the same time, more freedom is always a good thing. It is a parents responsibility to monitor what their children are doing. Just so long as this doesn't turn into a situation where a minor is granted rights by the courts to disobey their parents censorship on grounds of free speech.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

Good stuff. When I used to be a "minor", I played every FPS/RTS/RPG which was deemed "violent"/"inappropriate" by the media (ME1/ME2, GTA, CS, you name it) and I don't think it changed me in any way, I actually learned most of my English through it. If someone is dumb enough to go on a killing rampage because the game they were given was "violent", then they're just dumb in general and should be isolated from the society. I played Quake 1 when I was 12, and all I remember is that it was a fun FPS, just the graphics strained my eyes a bit (too low-res). While everyone was ranting about Hot Coffee mod for GTA:SA and how the game should be given higher ratings, I didn't even bother to download it, because the TV nowadays shows much more sexual content at any time. When they were ranting about Mass Effect "sex simulator", I was paying attention to the storyline and gameplay instead of worrying whether I'll see naked aliens/humans or not.

Linking video game violence and real world is pure BS. Yes, I *enjoy* firefights and explosions in GTA and Just Cause 2, it's damn fun blowing up the entire town and gunning down everyone on your way, but what does it have to do with real life? We all know that video games are meant for experiencing something we can't or *don't* want to experience in real life (full-scale war, for instance), and it makes no sense to project video game content into the actions of the person in real life.

And no, it is NOT similar to cigarettes or alcohol. Those two things ruin your PHYSICAL health. Your MENTAL health cannot be ruined by the amount of violence in games or movies. Sure, some games that ARE really bloody/scary (F.E.A.R., chainsaw/blade dismemberment games) are better kept away from 5-year-old kids. But to give Mass Effect or GTA an 18+ rating because of a few curse words and romantic scenes? I'd have these ratings reduced to 13+.

 

[fir_ser]

[citation][nom]glasssplinter[/nom]So how long until porn falls under this and kids can buy it? Doesn't that stifle first amendment rights? I guess cigarettes and alcohol are next...[/citation]
You are right my friend.

 

[CyberAngel]

Nice that US have laws that protect the Devil.
USA is the least Christian country of them all.
GUARDIANS ARE NOT GOOD FOR THEY CHILDREN
when they allow them violence
THAT*S WHY you should have laws to protect the innocent
now you don't. Too bad...really Bad...BAD!
The Judgement Day is coming...

 

[farleytron]

Nice that US have laws that protect the Devil.
USA is the least Christian country of them all.
GUARDIANS ARE NOT GOOD FOR THEY CHILDREN
when they allow them violence
THAT*S WHY you should have laws to protect the innocent
now you don't. Too bad...really Bad...BAD!
The Judgement Day is coming...

HerpaDerp!

 

[Khimera2000]

the only thing censorship does is cut taxes from the government. You can try and tell people what they can and can not do, but there still going to do it.

People are going to want to play these games, just like kids want to watch R rated movies. There is already evidance that the violence in gameing is not the single most driving facter, and needs other elements to maintain intrest.

if they dont want kids playing violent video games, then come up with something thats entertaining that isint violent. there is no other way. Parents cant hownd there kids 24/7 they can only teach so much, governments can only regulate so much, and without having kids serve prison time for renting legend of zelda I dont think kids will care that much.

Unfortionatly its my personal beleaf that bliss can be found in the middle.

 

[Stryter]

[citation][nom]CyberAngel[/nom]Nice that US have laws that protect the Devil.USA is the least Christian country of them all.GUARDIANS ARE NOT GOOD FOR THEY CHILDRENwhen they allow them violenceTHAT*S WHY you should have laws to protect the innocentnow you don't. Too bad...really Bad...BAD!The Judgement Day is coming...[/citation]

If you are trying to be funny and/or sarcastic, it didn't come across very well. Just FYI.

 

[wopr11]

It is reassuring to see how the court consistently protects the earnings of the gaming industry - kids can play any game they want and kill each other if they want as long as the game dealer makes its money.

 

[amk-aka-Phantom]

I still don't get it... what is WRONG with kids killing each other in video games? Besides, I don't think that a 14-year-old can be considered a "kid", and they're not allowed to play CoD, because it's 16+.