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

[donavannj]

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

More aptly applied to that amendment, books and video games are a form of expressing political views, which falls under free speech.

 

[lx_theo]

What I have a problem with is how general their definition of a violent game is. Whats that? Well over half the games on store shelves?

 

[Gary the Magic Fairy]

There is A case, however it is not recent, but assuming you don't care anyway:

Here.

As you very well know, Grand Theft Auto has been a video game of great controversy when it comes to safety among children. This is not an exception. :( Like I said, very outdated, but an incident nonetheless.

And he wasn't even 10!

Because driving is totally something only found in GTA. If he had taken said car to go shoot people on the street, then maybe. That article is ridiculously biased.

 

[lx_theo]

What I have a problem with is how general their definition of a violent game is. Whats that? Well over half the games on store shelves?

 

[The Corrupt Plague]

Even if that law passes, it's going to do nothing. Even if they can't buy them, the kiddies are still probably going to download them from some warez site. Fact: kids are not morons, I have actually seen some around here that are younger than TEN that already know about emulation.

 

[Pokeyomom]

I think we should still sell violent games to kids; but we should subject them to eductaion on HOW TO DIFFERENTIATE FICTION FROM REALITY. This would largely be a parent responsibility. However, since most parents suck, maybe a law like this might not be a half bad idea. Kids are being exposed to waaaayyy to much these days.

 

[Captain Fabio]

The whole debate of children and teens been exposed to violence, sexual themes and so on are in the world, outside of video games as well.

Maybe the government should look at preventing crime, instead of criminal themes in a game.
Bottom line is, a game is a game.
Anyone who thinks it is real and takes is so seriously that they think it is ok to go out into the real world and do it, is a complete idiot, or has a mental disorder.
Either way, law or no law, they would do it regardless.

 

[FreakyLocz14]

Being a lifetime resident of California and a gamer, I have my opinions on this.
I think parents should be the one who decide what games are appropriate for their children, not the government. I'm against this law but it would be more reasonable to just not sell the games to minors but should be exepmt if the parent is buying it for them because it would mean the parent has no objections with their child playing the game.

 

[lucariojon]

I like any law that reduces the chance of children becoming exposed to violent (and sexual) media.

The law itself may not help all that much, but it's an effort. I'm sure a few thousands kids won't be exposed to these bad influences if this law were to pass, and I find that that's a success.

(Back of Pokemon soul silver box) Rated E for everyone- Mild cartoon violence.
Since it says violence, Pokemon might not sell in California anymore =/
If you ask me, I think parent's should look at the rating of the game for once, then the state wouldn't have to do this, because kids wouldn't be getting games not appropriate for there age group.
If you ask me, I don't like the fact that we can't buy violent games if were a kid, all of my friends normally tend to only play fighting games/ violent games.
I just have one question, though. Is this only in California or is it gonna hit every other state?

The whole debate of children and teens been exposed to violence, sexual themes and so on are in the world, outside of video games as well.

Maybe the government should look at preventing crime, instead of criminal themes in a game.
Bottom line is, a game is a game.
Anyone who thinks it is real and takes is so seriously that they think it is ok to go out into the real world and do it, is a complete idiot, or has a mental disorder.
Either way, law or no law, they would do it regardless.

I agree with this user, violence is pretty much all around us =/
Its on the streets, in the alleys, and sometimes even in your school =/
Games are just games, like this user said, they shouldn't be taken seriously.

E

Being a lifetime resident of California and a gamer, I have my opinions on this.
I think parents should be the one who decide what games are appropriate for their children, not the government. I'm against this law but it would be more reasonable to just not sell the games to minors but should be exepmt if the parent is buying it for them because it would mean the parent has no objections with their child playing the game.

Exactly, I also think that if the parent decide to buy it for there kids, it means the mother/ father of the child means he/ she can play the game.

 

[TeddyPicka]

Even though this law is being carried on out on the other side of the world, I fail to see why it is a good thing. Video game violence for me is a good thing as it helps take my anger out rather on some lifeless pixels than my friends and family. The incidents which arise over video game violence related deaths would be more of a refference to the criminal having a mental illness. For instance, shortly after the realease of GTA IV in Britain a boy attacked another with a claw hammer and the game was blamed. I'm from Glasgow which was named the murder capital of Europe so I live in a world full of death and murder. People locally die all the time in my area so why have none of these deaths been related to games ?.

 

[Meowth! That's right!]

This is stupid, obviously a 7 year old shouldn't be able to walk in and buy Grand Theft Auto but why can't a 17 year old? Usually when a young kid is playing something inappropriate it's because their parents bought for them it not knowing how violent it was or it's their older brother's game or something, so an age restriction isn't going to stop that. Anyway if a kid is old enough to be buying their own games then they're probably old enough for a bit of computer generated violence, my 14 year old sister walked into a game shop and bought Modern Warfare 2 without being asked for her age or anything. Heck when I was 7 I played Goldeneye on the Nintendo 64 and it didn't affect me, I'm not shooting people in real life, but then again guns are actually illegal in my country as they should be, but that's another topic altogether.

 

[TeddyPicka]

TBH some people can't judge a persons age for crap :o I mean I'm fifteen but I look alot older and I was Id'd to buy step brothers on DVD but yet I was allowed into an over 18s dancing :S Age restrictions are so much of a fail it's unbelievable :/

 

[Rich Boy Rob]

I like any law that reduces the chance of children becoming exposed to violent (and sexual) media.

Great! Lets completely ban: TV, Books, Computers, Games, Magazines, Films and actually while we are here why don't we blind and deafen all children at birth too, that'll stop em seeing (or hearing) anything violent or sexual.

Anyway mini-rant over. I seriously don't get this whole thing about games influencing people's actions. I mean (to roughly quote Marcus Brigstocke) people from 20 odd years ago aren't all running around mazes chomping pills trying to escape ghosts while yelling "WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA WAKKA", or running left and right shooting boxes at invaders from space, so why should modern games be any different?

 

[InMooseWeTrust]

All Pokémon games that involve battling are violent, because they involve attacking your opponent until they faint. Let's have that established first.

I like any law that reduces the chance of children becoming exposed to violent (and sexual) media.

The law itself may not help all that much, but it's an effort. I'm sure a few thousands kids won't be exposed to these bad influences if this law were to pass, and I find that that's a success.

It's a simple economics thing. Yes, you might deter 0.01% of kids playing those games from becoming violent, but at the same time, you're taking away the right to enjoy video gaming in all its glory from 99.99% of the gamers who are NOT violent as a result of violent gaming (the issues themselves are a lot more complex than what you can solve with a simple banning). Is it really worth it to take away some enjoyment from the overwhelming majority to only stop a few people? No, it's not.

There are plenty of other bad influences and they're just as deadly. What if some of these kids are raised by abusive parents, and to them, violent video games are a form of outlet for aggression (like sports and martial arts are for some people) keeping them from doing violent things to other people? When you take an action in favor of or against something, there are unseen opportunity costs, and sometimes, the benefits of the prohibition are not worth the things that come out as a result. The best example of this is alcohol prohibition in the United States.

Unfortunately, the Supreme Court is full of the same ideological garbage that exists everywhere else in the country. They're supposed to INTERPRET the Constitution, not make laws. Lately they've been doing too much of the latter and not enough of the former. The founding fathers didn't want the government to micromanage people's lives, which is what this law entails. The government is supposed to govern people in a fair way. Nothing more, nothing less. Maybe instead of worrying so much about video games, the government should focus on the trillions of dollars we owe to every other country in the world, and try to end peacefully some of the foreign entanglements that are destroying America's image to the world.

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.

........................................... no comment.

What I have a problem with is how general their definition of a violent game is. Whats that? Well over half the games on store shelves?

Even Pokémon and Mario Kart are violent. Without violent games, I'd be stuck with playing.... um.... Harvest Moon, Animal Crossing, ...... Hamtaro.... That's about it.

As you very well know, Grand Theft Auto has been a video game of great controversy when it comes to safety among children. This is not an exception. :( Like I said, very outdated, but an incident nonetheless.

I know a lot of people who play Grand Theft Auto and they would never even hurt a fly. Well, they would hurt flies, but you know what I mean.

 

[ANARCHit3cht]

Welll... I don't really see this passing. In the event it does pass, not much would change. Parents usually buy the video games for the children, anyway... . It should really be up to the parent about what content their children can and cannot view.

 

[Kenpari]

I don't quite understand this... You already can't sell an M-rated video game to anybody under 17. Somebody 17 or older has to be there to buy it.

 

[salochin]

I suppose captialism and Free Speech are no longer U.S. Values. Pssh, why bother with stopping at games? Why not "Unrated" DVD's? Heck just get rid of anything that portrays the world as anything other than a bundle of a joy where we all eat rainbows and ride bunnies with unicorn horses that run on love and don't need money. -.-

Honestly, M-RATED hmmm, are we now admitting that the ESRB is useless, that it's not doing it's job, why even have it then? So a game is M-rated, and might contain blood. Sorry I forgot the world isn't violent. Gun running, drug wars all that doesn't exist in the real world, why should anything even similar to that even be sold, it's not as if developers HAVE THE RIGHT. You know that first ammendment? Oh it's just a myth.


But refocusing the topic, is it honestly that bad? 'Promoting animal Cruelty' What beating pixels will cause people to subconsiously want to beat their dog? If they are that stupid to start learning daily habits from video games, why are they not in a sanitarium? Honestly Games DON'T promote bad habits to anyone with an IQ high enough to read, why censor freedom of speech and a taxable industry? More goverment and more power to the feds, that's all it is.

 

[TRIFORCE89]

I don't have a problem with this. We do the same thing with film, so why shouldn't it apply to games?

The ESRB needs some tweaking. The M-rating should be split because there is some much in that category that just shouldn't be grouped together. Something is needed between T an M.

Regardless, right now, a lot of retailers do not ask for ID, even if they claim to follow the ESRB. So, if you need to give them a little kick in the butt or an incentive to actually do that. Go right ahead.

Doesn't seem all that drastic to me. Looks like they're just telling retailers to actually do their job. I miss something?

 

[donavannj]

I don't have a problem with this. We do the same thing with film, so why shouldn't it apply to games?

The ESRB needs some tweaking. The M-rating should be split because there is some much in that category that just shouldn't be grouped together. Something is needed between T an M.

Regardless, right now, a lot of retailers do not ask for ID, even if they claim to follow the ESRB. So, if you need to give them a little kick in the butt or an incentive to actually do that. Go right ahead.

Doesn't seem all that drastic to me. Looks like they're just telling retailers to actually do their job. I miss something?

There is no law on this... it's all done on the part of the theaters, if my memory serves.

The ESRB is a far better rating system than the movie rating system, and is applied in a more discriminating manner than the movie ratings (most PG-13 movies I've seen would be an M-rated game if converted into a video game with the same plot, though I do agree that T and PG-13 should be broken up a bit more, since maturity very much varies between a 12/13 year old and a 15 year old, and the ESRB makes games the majority of 15 and 16 year olds can handle into M-rated games).

Every major (and most of the minor retailers) game retailer in my area, if you look under 17 or 18, will ask you for ID, and a similar law was struck down this decade in my state.

Also, it's the wording that's troubling to me, which can end up including cartoon violence because "maiming an image of a human" can include even slapping, if the wording were to be interpreted loosely enough.

 

[ANARCHit3cht]

Also, it's the wording that's troubling to me, which can end up including cartoon violence because "maiming an image of a human" can include even slapping, if the wording were to be interpreted loosely enough.

That is a pretty good point. I play a lot of games that aren't just based on killing people, stealing, and all the stuff they are basically trying to limit. Some games just have a few scenes were you see any sort of "violence" despite how trivial it might be. Also, games like Tales of Symphonia aren't even "suggestive" of the violence theme that most consider it to be. There is no blood, and you fight monsters, not kill random humans.

I could see that what they are trying to do, and it is a good cause, but they aren't doing it in the right way.