That has nothing to do with the first ammendment though lol
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.
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.Thats true. But they cannot tell companies what they can and cannot sell.
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.
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.Sheltering them only makes them turn out worse imo.
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.If they aren't willing ot accept that responsibility, then they ought not be parenting.
You're correct. It's charging around 65,000 rand.Your government obviously isn't charging 1000 euros for not following this law.
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: Alright, help me clear this up, because this may be why I'm not understanding everyone else's stance in this.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.
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.
Wall Street Journal Article said: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."
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.
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.
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. :\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.
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
Or it's like a parent purchasing condoms for her 17 year old son, whom they deem likely && responsible enough to have safe sex.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.
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.
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.
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.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
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.
That or he might get a Super Soaker and a garden hoe and start kicking some ass.
That's the concern though.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.
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.
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.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.
which site do parents know about that explain in full detail about any game.
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.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?
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.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.