US Supreme Court to Consider Law Limiting the Sale of Violent Video Games‎

[.Gamer]

That has nothing to do with the first ammendment though lol

 

[donavannj]

That has nothing to do with the first ammendment though lol

Yes it does, by the logic of the post of yours I quoted... you said that the government can't tell companies what they can and can't sell, and I just provided examples of government restrictions on what companies can and can't sell.

 

[.Gamer]

I meant they can't in regards to the first ammendment, however regarding non-speech related products they can.

 

[Cacttus]

See, there's that First Amendment thing again. =\\

The. First. Amendment. has. restrictions. in. regards. to. obscenity.

Please. understand. your. rights. before. invoking. them.



As a matter of fact, her country, my country, the European Union, && many others have passed laws restricting or censoring excessively violent video games.

Oddly enough, we're still getting by.

It may protect us from our indecencies, but who's to say that a game will cause such an uproar or any kind?
A game in no way will provoke violence in a stable citizen and that's why theirs a rating on it.

Please believe I understand my right completely, please don't insult my intelligence.

Your government obviously isn't charging 1000 euros for not following this law.

 

[Erin]

Thats true. But they cannot tell companies what they can and cannot sell.

Really? Awesome. So I'm a 12 year old, I'm gonna head over to my local convienience store and pick up a gram of weed, a handle of Absolut, six R-rated movies, a carton of Marlboro Menthols, and a few birth control pills.

Case and point.

Also, agreeing with donovannj, if a parent is willing to buy a game for their child that is excessively violent/sexual/has goatse references, don't worry about it, its not your job, nor the governments job, nor anyone but the parent's job to worry about what goes on with that child and what video games he does/does not play.

In a perfect world I would agree with you; I'm quite the Libertarian.

But here's the catch: In many states, it's already illegal to sell M-rated games to minors without parental consent. Many other large firms have a company-wide policy that extend that rule, even to states that don't have the requirement in law.

That being said, enforcing laws && policies that are already in place doesn't seem too outrageous. There's more critical aspects of the private sector under risk of government encroachment that need to be focused upon. Regulation of sales of certain goods to minors is just a matter of commerce.

Sheltering them only makes them turn out worse imo.

Most sane people wouldn't the censorship of throwing a set of ninja stars at a zombie to cripple it, then running up to it, cutting open its chest with a knife && ripping out its intestines "sheltering" of a child. Those who do probably shouldn't be parenting.

If they aren't willing ot accept that responsibility, then they ought not be parenting.

I agree with you on fundamentals, but I'm a realist. Many parents of the 21st Century shouldn't be parenting to begin with, && several either won't be informed enough to or won't care to research the video games they allow their children to purchase. For the same reason drugs, alcohol, R-rated movies, sex-related products, tobbaco, lottery cards, and a variety of other goods have limitations on their avalibility to minors, so should excessively violent or profane video games.

Your government obviously isn't charging 1000 euros for not following this law.

You're correct. It's charging around 65,000 rand.
Why is it such a big deal? Parents who still approve of or believe their children are mature enough to play such video games can still purchase the games for their children. All this does is fine companies that sell M-rated games to children directly, which is against the laws of several states && policies of even more companies to begin with.

 

[donavannj]

I meant they can't in regards to the first ammendment, however regarding non-speech related products they can.

That is true. And what I listed moreso pertains to the Ninth Amendment rights of the people.

EDIT: What concerns me is the way the law is worded... by their definition, numerous games that are rated T would be illegal to sell to minors, and even a few E and E10+ rated games. Their definition is too vague. I trust the ESRB more than any government when it comes to video game ratings. As proof, Grand Theft Auto IV was recently re-rated from M to NC-17.

 

[Erin]

That is true. And what I listed moreso pertains to the Ninth Amendment rights of the people.

More of a general legal question than an ideological one, but in what way would the Court use the Ninth Amendment to strike down the California law?

"Unenumerated rights" have been used in a lot of state && federal legislation, but I've never seen it used as by a Court. Seems to vague to be the primary reasoning to a ruling.

EDIT: What concerns me is the way the law is worded... by their definition, numerous games that are rated T would be illegal to sell to minors, and even a few E and E10+ rated games. Their definition is too vague. I trust the ESRB more than any government when it comes to video game ratings. As proof, Grand Theft Auto IV was recently re-rated from M to NC-17.

EDIT: Alright, help me clear this up, because this may be why I'm not understanding everyone else's stance in this.

What's the specific wording of the law? My understanding was that the legislation in question only allowed government to fine retailers that knowingly sold M+ games directly to minors.

 

[.Fenris]

Huh? If games like GTA or Postal get the heat, I'm good. BUUTT they wanna do this with games where you're the SWAT team member or Navy SEAL, etc; we're gonna have problems.

 

[donavannj]

More of a general legal question than an ideological one, but in what way would the Court use the Ninth Amendment to strike down the California law?

"Unenumerated rights" have been used in a lot of state && federal legislation, but I've never seen it used as by a Court. Seems to vague to be the primary reasoning to a ruling.


EDIT: Alright, help me clear this up, because this may be why I'm not understanding everyone else's stance in this.

What's the specific wording of the law? My understanding was that the legislation in question only allowed government to fine retailers that knowingly sold M+ games directly to minors.

It wouldn't... I was talking about the product safety regulations and the like with that. It would primarily be the First Amendment if it were struck down, since video games are more of a media of expression like art and writing than they are a product.

It isn't clear which games would be affected by California's law, which defines a violent video game as one that "includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."

I underlined the world that could be used very loosely in this case. That's my main issue with it, since maiming can be stretched to cover cartoony human injury, including games like The Sims, even though it's a completely optional thing in The Sims. The WSJ article I quoted: https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704464704575208463106126530.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us

 

[Cacttus]

You're correct. It's charging around 65,000 rand.
Why is it such a big deal? Parents who still approve of or believe their children are mature enough to play such video games can still purchase the games for their children. All this does is fine companies that sell M-rated games to children directly, which is against the laws of several states && policies of even more companies to begin with.

Then the parent should be charged with Accessory to murder/said crime. It's like they've given the kid a loaded gun and drugs.

 

[donavannj]

Then the parent should be charged with Accessory to murder/said crime. It's like they've given the kid a loaded gun and drugs.

Now that's quite a rash comparison to make, and fairly irrational to boot, since children can technically use hunting rifles if they've taken a training course in most states. And the drugs part wasn't necessary. :\

If a parent feels, after having done ample research, that their child is mature enough to handle the game, then, by all means, let the parent buy it. It's those who don't do their research that I worry about. :S

 

[Erin]

I underlined the world that could be used very loosely in this case. That's my main issue with it, since maiming can be stretched to cover cartoony human injury, including games like The Sims, even though it's a completely optional thing in The Sims. The WSJ article I quoted: https://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704464704575208463106126530.html?mod=rss_whats_news_us

Now that you bring that into play, it is rather concerning. Adding a fine to existing laws in order to encourage enforcement I have no problems with, but I agree with you in that policymakers trying to reform the definition of video game ratings is unnessecary; it's like trying to fix a clock that works just fine.

I won't deny that the ESRB ratings work just fine; our own rating system is modeled after ESRB, && not without reason. Making it legally binding I have no problem with, unnessecarily trying to reform it, I do.

My bad you guys.

Then the parent should be charged with Accessory to murder/said crime. It's like they've given the kid a loaded gun and drugs.

Or it's like a parent purchasing condoms for her 17 year old son, whom they deem likely && responsible enough to have safe sex.

Or a parent who consents to get their child to get a hunting liscense, if they deem their child responsible enough to do so.

Neither of which are illegal at all.

 

[donavannj]

It's been rational... it's just not been as obvious recently because of partisan-based politics. D;

Oh please, like Silent Hill and Resident Evil are gonna cause much damage to a 10-year old. They have enough of an imagination already.

Not necessarily one that gets images of killing people, though. D;

 

[donavannj]

And how is that different from Power Rangers whose is supposedly a ~totally~ non-violent franchise because all you have to do is dress up in a tight suit and whip out some tae kwan do? They can get violent through those means, y'know.

True... but you also have to consider the fact that a 10 year old's imagination would make him or her terrified of the dark after playing Silent Hill, Resident Evil, or Left 4 Dead. You have to consider the emotional scars, too. D;

 

[.Gamer]

I think it should be the parents responsibility to teach the child that there is a difference between real life and video games. Honestly, its not that hard of a concept to grasp. People are too worried these days about how people feel about stuff. Personally, I think its retarded. They don't show old cartoons and stuff because they were "too violent." My arse they were. Society is going farther and farther down this road that leads to some supposed happy ground where butterflies are everywhere and unicorns poop hapiness. Its getting a bit out of hand.


EDIT: 999 post!

 

[Cacttus]

Now that's quite a rash comparison to make, and fairly irrational to boot, since children can technically use hunting rifles if they've taken a training course in most states. And the drugs part wasn't necessary. :\

If a parent feels, after having done ample research, that their child is mature enough to handle the game, then, by all means, let the parent buy it. It's those who don't do their research that I worry about. :S

Really? What parent reads through an entire instruction book before buying a game, which store let's you play an entire game before buying, which site do parents know about that explain in full detail about any game.

Or it's like a parent purchasing condoms for her 17 year old son, whom they deem likely && responsible enough to have safe sex.

Or a parent who consents to get their child to get a hunting liscense, if they deem their child responsible enough to do so.

Neither of which are illegal at all.

And when their responsible child shoots someone, they should be charged for giving their so "responsible" child a gun. (Accessory & Child Endangerment)

 

[donavannj]

That or he might get a Super Soaker and a garden hoe and start kicking some ass.

XDDDD That made me laugh in the middle this serious discussion! And that just reminded me of the SNES/Genesis game Zombies Ate My Neighbors, which was one of my favorite games when I was 10. /kinda an exception the the standard of 10 year olds being afraid of zombies

On a serious note, show me a case where that has happened.

@Rellyms: There isn't a book that explicitly explains each game, because that would be wasteful and cost inefficient. Instead, parents can use Google, Commonsensemedia.org (which can do some spot on assessments, even if the reviewers are more socially conservative than ratings boards), the official ESRB website, etc. A smart parent would think to scope out a game before buying.

As for your second point, most parents go off of the age that they reflected upon as themselves being ready to handle a gun as a guideline for allowing their child to use a gun. Five year olds are fast learners and can understand a lot more than most give them credit for.

 

[Erin]

And how is that different from Power Rangers whose is supposedly a ~totally~ non-violent franchise because all you have to do is dress up in a tight suit and whip out some tae kwan do? They can get violent through those means, y'know.

That's the concern though.

Since they're actually not using ESRB's set ratings (again, my bad on that one) && trying to create their own, games as low-rated as E10+ could possibly be classified as "violent" because of stupid cartoon violence.

Will it go to that extreme? Probably not. Could kid-oriented games (i.e. Shadow the Hedgehog) be inadvertedly effected by the law? Certainly.

Stick with what works && enforce it. ESRB's a group of professionals who know what they're doing && rectify mistakes (i.e. changing the most recent Grand Theft Auto's rating from M to NC-17). Policymakers who have little or no experience in the field shouldn't be making new definitions.

I think it should be the parents responsibility to teach the child that there is a difference between real life and video games. Honestly, its not that hard of a concept to grasp.

They should. They won't.

People are too worried these days about how people feel about stuff. Personally, I think its retarded. They don't show old cartoons and stuff because they were "too violent." My arse they were. Society is going farther and farther down this road that leads to some supposed happy ground where butterflies are everywhere and unicorns poop hapiness. Its getting a bit out of hand.

This I can agree with; political correctness has taken far too much of a priority, to the point where people try to be so politically correct that it's sometimes taken as patronization and offends.

But at the same time, there's a level of decency that needs to be maintained. Moderation is the key.

which site do parents know about that explain in full detail about any game.

Wikipedia. Commonsensemedia. Whattheyplay. ESRB. Parentpreviews. Theyre's a myriad of them. Thing is, most of them are too busy, too clueless, or too carelss to actually check.

And when their responsible child shoots someone, they should be charged for giving their so "responsible" child a gun. (Accessory & Child Endangerment)

This is an aspect of American law I'm not really familiar with. In South Africa, in the case of a minor maliciously injuring another person, the minor is charged, && if a direct trace to the original provider of the weapon can be linked (which, in all honesty, doesn't happen in most cases), they are charged or fined as well (depending on the circumstance) for the infractions you described.

Is it similar in American law?

 

[donavannj]

This is an aspect of American law I'm not really familiar with. In South Africa, in the case of a minor maliciously injuring another person, the minor is charged, && if a direct trace to the original provider of the weapon can be linked (which, in all honesty, doesn't happen in most cases), they are charged or fined as well (depending on the circumstance) for the infractions you described.

Is it similar in American law?

It varies on a case-by-case basis, typically, though it usually makes national news when someone under the age of 12 intentionally shoots someone, so, in those cases, it's almost a given if a weapon source can be established.

 

[Red1530]

Since we are discussing the First Amendment, I think it is prudent to include its text.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

To the supports of this law I would like to know your reaction if a similar law was applied to books. If you don't like a similar being applied to books, then you cannot support it for video games because video games are also telling a story.