In case y'all missed it: BIG NEWS! Supreme Court strikes down Violent Video Game..

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

Law in Cali.

(06-27) 11:38 PDT SAN FRANCISCO -- The U.S. Supreme Court struck down California's ban on selling violent video games to minors today, ruling that young people's access to even the most brutal onscreen mayhem is protected by freedom of speech.
By a 7-2 vote, the justices declared unconstitutional a law that has been blocked by court orders since it was passed in 2005.
It would have prohibited the sale to anyone younger than 18 of a video game that was so violent that reasonable people would consider it "patently offensive" under prevailing community standards for minors. Prosecutors would also have been required to show that the game lacked serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Lower courts have unanimously overturned all such laws, passed by at least seven states and several cities. California asked the Supreme Court to chart a new course, arguing that laws restricting minors' access to sexually explicit material, which the court upheld in 1968, should be extended to violence - particularly to interactive media like video games.
Five justices, led by Antonin Scalia, flatly rejected that argument today.
In contrast to hard-core pornography, Scalia said, there is no "long-standing tradition in this country of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence."
He cited examples ranging from the violence in fair tales like Snow White and Hansel and Gretel, who "kill their captor by baking her in an oven," to fixtures on high school reading lists such as the Odyssey and Lord of the Flies.
U.S. history is filled with examples of popular media being blamed for juvenile delinquency, from the cheap crime novels of the 1800s to the movies and comic books of the 20th century, Scalia said. He said studied offered by the state in defense of the law have shown, at most, that some users of violent video games feel more aggressive afterward - the same effect found in viewers of Bugs Bunny and Road Runner cartoons.
"California has singled out the purveyors of video games for disfavored treatment - at least when compared to booksellers, cartoonists and movie producers - and has given no persuasive reason why," said Scalia, who was joined by Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Sonia Sotomayor and Elena Kagan in the opinion.
"A state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm ... but that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed," Scalia said.
Justice Samuel Alito, joined by Chief Justice John Roberts, said the California law should be found unconstitutional on narrower grounds - that it defined the prohibited games with terms such as "deviant" and "morbid," which they considered too vague. They said a more tightly written video games law, based on stronger research, might be constitutional.
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer said numerous researchers, supported by medical organizations, have concluded that ultra-violent video games can cause serious psychological harm to minors. He questioned the video game industry's claims of effectiveness for its voluntary rating system, and also questioned the logic of restricting minors' access to portrayals of nudity but not carnage.
"What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?" Breyer said.
Justice Clarence Thomas dissented separately, saying the Constitution, as he interpreted it, allows the government to prohibit any outsider from speaking to - or selling a product to - a minor without parental consent.
The ruling drew immediate condemnation from state Sen. Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, legislative author of the 2005 law.
"The majority of the Supreme Court once again put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children," he said.
The video game industry called the ruling a vindication of free expression.
"This is a historic and complete win for the First Amendment and the creative freedom of artists and storytellers everywhere," said Martin Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, an industry group.
The ruling in Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association, 08-1448, can be accessed at www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf.
E-mail Bob Egelko at [email protected].

Personally, this is a huge victory for gamers!

 

[Hyorinmaru]

I thought you couldn't sell violent games to minors anyway. Isn't that the purpose of the ratings on the front of the package?

 

[Lee]

They're more guidlelines not law.

I think it's stupid I don't want my kid playing GTA.

 

[SalvIsWin]

It is Milenko, but I think the purpose of the ban was that the ESRB is a separate institution from the government. The ESRB could change what they view is a M rated game for instance and allow it to be sold to people over the age of 13 - in which case a law like this would supercede it. That's my interpretation of the situation.

I think it's stupid I don't want my kid playing GTA.

Wait, what? Are you saying you supported this law?

 

[Daniel]

I'm confused, do Americans not have age restrictions on games?

 

[Lee]

We have age restrictions on games. I'm more for it then against it though most of the law (like it only being a white cover with an 18 and the game name on front) ais just stupid.

 

[Shocky]

It's stupid that the Supreme Court struck it down. Kids shouldn't be able to buy violent video games. Kids under 17 can't get into a movie theater without a parent or guardian, kids can't buy porn, whatever. The video games have a rating for a reason.

So pretty much, a four year old could buy a game like Gears of War 3, and no one would be able to stop it. That's a big problem. It's not censorship, it's common fucking sense.

 

[Lee]

It's stupid that the Supreme Court struck it down. Kids shouldn't be able to buy violent video games. Kids under 17 can't get into a movie theater without a parent or guardian, kids can't buy porn, whatever. The video games have a rating for a reason.

So pretty much, a four year old could buy a game like Gears of War 3, and no one would be able to stop it. That's a big problem. It's not censorship, it's common fucking sense.

Oh my brother testify!

 

[One Punch Doug Crashin]

Common Sense is the Parents be able to tell their kids what they can buy. Not the government.

 

[Shocky]

It's not saying that the kids shouldn't play the games, but the kids shouldn't buy the games. Why is it so hard for the parent to buy the game?

 

[Hyorinmaru]

I'm confused, do Americans not have age restrictions on games?

http://www.geeksquad.com/do-it-yourself/tech-tip/guide-to-video-game-ratings.aspx

 

[SalvIsWin]

It's not saying that the kids shouldn't play the games, but the kids shouldn't buy the games. Why is it so hard for the parent to buy the game?

So then what's the difference? If you're going to let your kid play the violent game, then he should be able to buy it. What's the point in supporting outlawing the selling of violent video games to minors if you agree that they should be able to play said game? You seem to agree that the parent should be involved, and I think the parent should be aware of what their child is playing and buying, not just the former.

 

[Shocky]

I just use the movie theater thing. Kids can't buy tickets or see the movie without a parent. Why not just make it simple and only have parents buy the game for their child? Whose to say the kid isn't buying the game behind their parents back? If we already have laws "protecting" children from media in virtually every other form of media, why be selective when it comes to games?

 

[Lee]

Don't blame the parents, I got up to all sorts my parents didn't know, doesn't mean they're bad parents.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Movie industry isn't regulated by the government - it self-regulates, the same way video gaming does right now. The ESRB has the same policy as the MPAA, which is that you cannot buy a game that isn't suitable (not old enough for the rating) without an adult. They can't force a retailer to comply, although most do because if they blatantly didn't, then companies wouldn't ship them games. All major retailers abide by the guidelines of the ESRB, just as all major theatres abide by the guidelines of the MPAA.

The fact is we don't have laws protecting our children from media in virtually every other form of media - that's simply not true, and this law is singling out one form of media from another.

Don't blame the parents, I got up to all sorts my parents didn't know, doesn't mean they're bad parents.

Doesn't mean they're bad parents, but they were irresponsible when it came to monitoring your video game habits (if that was the example).

 

[Lee]

No because I was unable to buy adult games in the store. As Shocky said the best way is to get the parent to buy it.

 

[SalvIsWin]

No because I was unable to buy adult games in the store. As Shocky said the best way is to get the parent to buy it.

I don't understand what you're referring to here.

 

[Lee]

In the UK it's not legal for a retailer to sell to a child.

The parent will have to go in and buy the game for the child.

That's the way it should be.

 

[SalvIsWin]

In the UK it's not legal for a retailer to sell to a child.

The parent will have to go in and buy the game for the child.

That's the way it should be.

Why?

 

[Lee]

Why should retailers sell games designed for 18 year olds to 13 year olds who don't have parental permission?

 

[Nate DaMac]

Why?

What do you mean, why? The content is not designed for children so it shouldn't be sold to children. If parents decide that it's ok for their kid then fine, let them buy it.

 

[Coco]

If singling out video games in particular is what bothers some people here, I would have no problem with government preventing adult media of any kind from falling into the hands of children.

 

[SalvIsWin]

Why should retailers sell games designed for 18 year olds to 13 year olds who don't have parental permission?

They shouldn't, but that's not synonymous with having the government regulate the video game industry.

What do you mean, why? The content is not designed for children so it shouldn't be sold to children. If parents decide that it's ok for their kid then fine, let them buy it.

I agree with you, but we have the ESRB to rate video games, and we have retailers that abide by the guidelines. The fail-safe to all of this should be the parents. It's the same way the movie industry works.

If singling out video games in particular is what bothers some people here, I would have no problem with government preventing adult media of any kind from falling into the hands of children.

I'm not comfortable with my government telling me how I should raise my children. The difference between the ESRB and government regulation would be that the former simply makes it not possible to obtain the game by purchasing it, whereas the latter makes it illegal to obtain the game by purchasing it.

I don't see the logic in saying, "Children shouldn't be buying media that isn't age appropriate for them! Oh, but they can play it, sure who cares." What the fuck? So you don't care about the child actually viewing the media, it's the actually owning of the media that bothers you? Either way it comes down to the parents to be raising their children.

 

[Lee]

I'm not comfortable with my government telling me how I should raise my children.

So age of consent and the drinking age is a violation of this and thus unconstitutional?

 

[Coco]

Yeah, get'im Lee.