SCOTUS to address violence in video games

[w¡n9Nµ7 §£@¥€r 123]

WASHINGTON (Reuters) – The Supreme Court said on Monday it would decide whether a California law banning the sale and rental of violent video games to minors violated constitutional free-speech rights, the first time it will consider a video game case.

...

The law had been challenged by video game publishers, distributors and sellers, including by the Entertainment Software Association.

...

The state argued that the free-speech guarantees of the First Amendment do not bar a state from prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors under 18.

...

The law prohibits the sale of an interactive video game to anyone under 18 if the game was so violent it was "patently offensive," according to prevailing community standards and lacked serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20100426/us_nm/us_usa_court_videogames

[Ali G. 37]

If the distribution of videos of deliberate animal cruelty is permitted, like this law will be honored.

Are you sure you guys are a republic or democracy? It sure seems that under the presidential system, the judiciary runs the show here.

America's definition of freedom is truly unique to America.

Edited April 26, 2010 by Ali G.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

Just as you have to be 17 to see a rated R movie by yourself, just as you have to be 17 to buy the same movie in a store by yourself. Just as you have to be 18 to buy a parental warning CD in most stores...

I don't see how this is much different.

[pedroh 21]

the problem is that censorship in the USA is ridiculous to a certain extent. While I agree some videogames should be sold to over 18 people, specially the ones with violence and gore, some other measurements of censorship are ridiculous. OMG! an ####! omg, boobs! the morbosity of the human body in certain aspects is ridiculous and prudish.

but to the videogames issue. I think there are games not appropriate for younger audiences