SCOTUS To Decide The Fate of "Violent" Video Games And Minors..

[Obama 2012 1,714]

I'm half-way on board with California here.

I think that games rated M aka. 17+ should only be rented/sold to those of appropriate age. I mean that is really a given. If a parent is not present, then a store has no business giving games with the mature rating to minors.

I do not think however, that the type of violence described alone should be part of the ban to minors. I mean T aka. 13+ games have violence in them sometimes and you kill people at times too, just not in such a bloody way. I think it'd be a bit overboard to make those games be 18+ as well...

Personally I don't think kids should be playing violent video games like Modern Warfare 2, etc. It's a bit much really at the end of the day. I'm not saying it makes anyone violent, but at the same time it's a very adult thing, especially online when you're playing with other people who are cussing up a storm, etc. When you're hearing a bunch of 12 year olds online dropping the N-word and F-bomb it's kind of disturbing...

------------

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6268990.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop%3Btitle%3B1

California has taken the first swing in its Supreme Court fight against the gaming industry, as this week State Senator Leland Yee announced the filing of the state's initial arguments supporting a ban on the sale of violent games to minors. Yee expects oral arguments in the case to be heard this fall.

"I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will help us give parents a valuable tool to protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games," Yee said in a prepared statement. "The Supreme Court has never heard a case dealing with violent video games, and considering the precedent set by the high court, I am confident that they will uphold our law as Constitutional."

Among the precedents he referred to are rulings saying that states can limit minors' access to harmful materials like pornography, alcohol, and tobacco. The written argument also says that many states have enacted laws regulating both sexually explicit and violent material to minors, and that society has an understanding that both influences be equally harmful to children.

"This is further reflected in the fact that violence can strip constitutional protection from otherwise protected material," according to the state's argument. "Sexually explicit material that would be otherwise protected for distribution to adults can be considered obscene given the violent nature of its depiction. No rational justification exists for treating violent material so vastly different than sexual material under the First Amendment when reviewing restrictions on distribution to minors."

Signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 but challenged in court before it could take effect, the bill sought to ban the sale or rental of "violent video games" to children. A "violent" game was defined as a "game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." Under the law, retailers that sold such games would be subject to a $1,000 fine.

The bill would also have required "violent" video games to bear a two-inch-by-two-inch sticker with a "solid white '18' outlined in black" on their front covers. That's more than twice the size of the labels that currently adorn game-box covers and display the familiar Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) rating.

In 2007, a circuit court judge struck down the law as unconstitutional but admitted he was "sympathetic to what the legislature sought to do." Last year, an appellate court judge backed up the original ruling. Months before the appellate court's decision, in an appearance on GameSpot's HotSpot podcast, Yee predicted that the dispute would be pushed to the Supreme Court.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

I think that games rated M aka. 17+ should only be rented/sold to those of appropriate age. I mean that is really a given. If a parent is not present, then a store has no business giving games with the mature rating to minors.

You're just another nanny state advocate.

[Obama 2012 1,714]

You're just another nanny state advocate.

No, I'm leaving it up to parents to decide the fate of their children. If a parent is presnt and a kid wants to buy a game, then fine. A 13 year old dropped off at the mall shouldn't be buying 17+ games, movies, etc. on their own though.

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

The problem is that all of these rating designations are subjective - so they have to come up with some sort of content list to separate the type of content that merits a T rating, from the content that gets an M.

I have no problem with game ratings - the only issue I have is with censorship, forcing changes in the game to remove certain content (like the names of real world drugs in Fallout 3 because Australian censors objected), or removing footage of things like headbutts (which the BBFC used to be infamous for - it meant the difference between a film getting a 12 and 15 rating).

[Heracles 417]

PIke, you sound like you'd have enjoyed those Roman-era public [human] gladiator battles.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Booyah!

[Trumplestiltskin 5,791]

PIke, you sound like you'd have enjoyed those Roman-era public [human] gladiator battles.

Video games are fantasy, blood sports are reality. Most people can tell the difference.

[Usui Takumi 1,562]

There have been something like 9 laws like this and all high courts have shot them down.

I learned recently that the government in general actually plays no part in the regulation of motion pictures. The MPAA created their own rating system and guidelines...ie its not "illegal" for a minor to enter an R film.

So actually if SCOTUS were to rule on this and say that the law is constitutional then it would have a major impact on all media.

Edited July 14, 2010 by Sousuke