Supreme Court turns down California's law on violent games

Link.

I'm surprised there wasn't any topic on this yet. Thought this would have had a bigger reaction. Can't say I'm surprised by the ruling. Kinda hard to justify censoring games when so many other forms of entertainment media are almost as bad as games are with violent imagery. Still, it's good to see the medium getting the protetction it deserves. This oughta cut down on the censorship bills some, if only for awhile.

To put it simply, in my opinion, the government has no right to tell us what we can or cannot do when it comes to our choices in gaming. They are not mom and dad and should never be that role. That's up to good parents who are smart enough to decide what games are or are not appropriate for their kids. It's simple as that! I'm glad they sided with us yet again!

No surprise.

I suspect legislators sometimes pass flagrantly unconstitutional laws just so they can campaign as having tried to do 'something'.

As a Californian, I apologize for wasting the Supreme Court's time with this nonsense. Our state government knows not what it does.

Good descision. Violence is everywhere in our media. If you aren't going to go after all violent media, it makes absolutely no sense to just pick on one outlet. I got a chuckle out of the part where the Court pointed out that if Califormia was really serious about going after violent media it should have gone after Saturday morning cartoons too.

I wish people would take special notice of the fact that the Court states unequivocally that there is no evidence that there is a special connection between violence and video games. But I know that people will continue to ignore that. The media will keep making the connection. Heck, I see threads on this forum making that connection all the time. It makes me especially sad to see gamers just follow the media hysteria like sheep. But I don't think even a decision from the Supreme Court will stop the attack on video games. Video game opponents are just going to continue to fund more studies and keep up their media assault and the conservatives are going to keep on claiming that we need video game laws and that liberal judges are preventing our children from getting the protection they need. It will continue to be business as usual.

Why try to ban them,Games have age classifications,Just like DVD's and so on,Will they try banning them?

What is wrong with you people?IDeedItDaBest

[QUOTE="IDeedItDaBest"]What is wrong with you people?rragnaar

How can your "opinion" be that you want 10 year olds to be able to walk into a store and buy whatever they want?IDeedItDaBest

If 10 year olds can indeed do that there are a few people not doing their job starting with the parents and all the way down to the employees that "could" sell the game.

Iv'e seen kids with their parents buying "18" rated games for the kids,The parents don't care.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"][QUOTE="IDeedItDaBest"]What is wrong with you people?IDeedItDaBest

You can deny that it affects them all you want, but it obviously changes the way a child sees the world. That's all there is to it.IDeedItDaBest

If the industry is doing fine regulating itself, why are there millions upon millions of little kids playing the yearly Call of Duty roster update online every day? You know, speaking as a 25 year old gamer who has been playing games since before I could walk, I am firmly against young kids playing today's shooters. What I had on NES was cartoonish. The most violent thing around was Contra. Now it's photorealistic shooting other people in the head. You can deny that it affects them all you want, but it obviously changes the way a child sees the world. That's all there is to it.IDeedItDaBest

It's not the industry's fault if some kid's parents feel it's all right for them to play some ultra-violent game. That's for the parents to decide. And if they feel that's all right, then who are we or the government to interfere?

If the industry is doing fine regulating itself, why are there millions upon millions of little kids playing the yearly Call of Duty roster update online every day?IDeedItDaBest

[QUOTE="IDeedItDaBest"]If the industry is doing fine regulating itself, why are there millions upon millions of little kids playing the yearly Call of Duty roster update online every day?DJ_Lae

Exactly. It's due to bad parenting. I've seen parents walk up to the store, hand them a box of the violent game, and give their consent without knowing too much of the game and don't do research at all, only wants their kid to be happy. Who the f*** cares, right? That's their business and those young kids who play COD have bad parents who just don't know how to safely protect their kids by not knowing any better.

[QUOTE="IDeedItDaBest"] How can your "opinion" be that you want 10 year olds to be able to walk into a store and buy whatever they want?Dracula68

If 10 year olds can indeed do that there are a few people not doing their job starting with the parents and all the way down to the employees that "could" sell the game.

This. So far, I haven't been in a video game store where I've seen under age kids buy games that are restricted to their age. Although once, I've had a kid offer me $20 to buy him Left 4 Dead 2 because he said the employees here won't let him buy it because of his age. Of course, I turned him down and I told him he needed to ask his parents, and not me. But you get the point, DeeditDaBest. There are employees that actually do their job. Don't be too cynical, even though I am kinda guilty of that myself, sometimes. :)

More often times, I see kids with their parents. And their parents would outright just say "NO" you cannot have that game. It's too violent.

Sometimes the First Amendment is a great thing. This is one of those days. I'm very glad the Supreme Court ruled the way they did: It shows that sometimes Justice can be served fairly and impartially.

[QUOTE="rragnaar"][QUOTE="IDeedItDaBest"] There is nothing wrong with any us. Just because we've got a different opinion doesn't mean you need to be hostile.IDeedItDaBest

I want parents to parent.

Did anyone read the decision. I found some of it very interesting.

"Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media. Since California has declined to restrict thoseother media, e.g., Saturday morning cartoons, its video-game regulation is wildly underinclusive, raising serious doubts about whether the State is pursuing the interest it invokes or is instead disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint. California also cannot show that the Act's restrictions meet the alleged substantial need of parents who wish to restrict their children's access to violent videos. The video-game industry's voluntary rating system already accomplishes that to a large extent. Moreover, as a means of assisting parents the Act is greatly overinclusive, since not all of the children who are prohibited from purchasing violent video games have parents who disapprove of their doing so." USSupremeCourt

http://literarytravesty.com/supreme-court-strikes-down-california-video-game-law/

Don't know why they feel the need to only have 1 thread about anything here... the fun is in everybody creating their own. Oh, thank goodness little kids can still buy violent games! After all, it's their first amendment right! It is unconstitutional to keep any American from buying whatever they want based on their age! I really don't get why people fought this thing and I don't understand how the supreme court chose this. There was never any talk of banning violent games. The point was to heavily regulate who could buy these games, the same way the MPAA does with movies. It would be the opposite of censorship. With proper regulation, an 'AO' type game would NOT be unsellable anymore. They could actually be sold in stores. This would have been good for the future of games as art. But no, everyone is a fool. Are California kids now allowed to legally buy porn too? 1st Amendment!IDeedItDaBest

A big day for games. its not going to keep 12 year olds from playing cod though

Well at least they're finally getting somewhere with this censorship thing.

That's good, though nothing would've changed had it passed. It's nice to know the government is at least staying out of this.

Ahem... Violent games were never banned. The law that banned the sale of violent games to children is what got struck down, not some imaginary law that generally banned violent games. :PThe-Apostle

Yeah, but "Supreme Court turns down California law on banning the sale of violent games to minors" would be too long of a title.

Anyways, I'll go ahead and edit it anyway.

[QUOTE="The-Apostle"]Ahem... Violent games were never banned. The law that banned the sale of violent games to children is what got struck down, not some imaginary law that generally banned violent games. :Pc_rake

Yeah, but "Supreme Court turns down California law on banning the sale of violent games to minors" would be too long of a title.

Anyways, I'll go ahead and edit it anyway.

well, that's good then. :-)

Don't know why they feel the need to only have 1 thread about anything here... the fun is in everybody creating their own. Oh, thank goodness little kids can still buy violent games! After all, it's their first amendment right! It is unconstitutional to keep any American from buying whatever they want based on their age! I really don't get why people fought this thing and I don't understand how the supreme court chose this. There was never any talk of banning violent games. The point was to heavily regulate who could buy these games, the same way the MPAA does with movies. It would be the opposite of censorship. With proper regulation, an 'AO' type game would NOT be unsellable anymore. They could actually be sold in stores. This would have been good for the future of games as art. But no, everyone is a fool. Are California kids now allowed to legally buy porn too? 1st Amendment!IDeedItDaBest

You, like everyone else who was in support of this law keep falling back on the same singular (and inaccurate) crutch. The notion that video games are akin to pornography and other forms of restricted sales items.

I said the following on another game site in response to someone who made the same mistaken comparison:

And It's because of people like you that this case went all the way to the supreme court. Because individuals like you don't understand that video games are NOT (as of today constitutionally) in line with porn and alcohol.

Video games have and always will be in line (again as of today constitutionally) with other forms of protected speech such as television, music, literature, and movies.

I frankly find it pathetic that it took anything more than a small amount of reason and logical thought to come to that conclusion. Let alone a supreme court ruling.

I'm not really sure what this law pretains to - Is it that kids aren't allowed to buy games if they are underage or is it actually "illegal" for them to own them entirely?

Here in Canada you can't buy a game if you're underage, however you can buy a game if you're underage and your parents give consent (by being with you and allowing you to purchase it). Is that what this law was?

I know I probably should just Google it, but I thought I'd ask here too lol.

I'm not really sure what this law pretains to - Is it that kids aren't allowed to buy games if they are underage or is it actually "illegal" for them to own them entirely?

Here in Canada you can't buy a game if you're underage, however you can buy a game if you're underage and your parents give consent (by being with you and allowing you to purchase it). Is that what this law was?

I know I probably should just Google it, but I thought I'd ask here too lol.

Haziqonfire

It was a law that would make it illegal to sell "violent video games to children". Basically forcing retailers to mark said games with a huge 3x3 sticker with the number 18 on it, and they would be fined $1000 every time they were caught selling any game with this sticker to a minor.

In and of itself the law sounds reasonable enough. Except IIRC it never specified an age range, does child mean anyone under 18? Or very young children say ages 10 and under? It also never specified what criteria would make a game fall under this law. As it doesn't follow or even recognize the ESRB's ratings. So does it mean all M-rated games? Or ANY game the state wants to slap an 18 sticker on?

But all a bit moot considering when it came down to it, the law violated the first amendment. Period end of story.

It was a law that would make it illegal to sell "violent video games to children". Basically forcing retailers to mark said games with a huge 3x3 sticker with the number 18 on it, and they would be fined $1000 every time they were caught selling any game with this sticker to a minor.

In and of itself the law sounds reasonable enough. Except IIRC it never specified an age range, does child mean anyone under 18? Or very young children say ages 10 and under? It also never specified what criteria would make a game fall under this law. As it doesn't follow or even recognize the ESRB's ratings. So does it mean all M-rated games? Or ANY game the state wants to slap an 18 sticker on?

But all a bit moot considering when it came down to it, the law violated the first amendment. Period end of story.

keech

Ah okay.

Over here basically how it goes is they look at the ESRB rating and ask you for ID if you don't look old enough, then they sell it to you if you're of age. I remember not being able to buy Resident Evil: Umbrella Chronicles because I was still 16 and you needed to be 17 (M rated) to buy it - and I still remember being ID'd to buy a used copy of Warrior Within when I was 19 :? - though I think the guy was being a jerk lol.

Their parents have likely deemed it to be okay (or worse, don't care, though that has the same end result). Same reason why kids watch violent movies. If the law had passed, absolutely nothing would change.DJ_Lae

I'm actually curious about this. Would it have changed anything? From what I understand if they had passed the law that would mean declaring that video games are not an art form, but more like an illicit substance. As such video games wouldn't have the same rights in the US under the first amendment that other art forms have. Would that have changed things?

I'm not actually American, so I would be lying if I said I actually knew much about this (also, correct me if I'm wrong). I just found it interesting.

I'm 33 years old..a little to old to still be on Gamespot but I still stop by every once and awhile. This is a tough issue. On one hand we all see that children are playing these games that were never intended for them every time we log onto a Console server. I'm not saying that in the 80's we were all angels and did nothing wrong..but these kids today. I might sound a little old but the stuff that comes out of thiermouths is unbelievable. What's even more baffiling is the fact that there is no way every one of these kids is playing when the parents are not home, I'm sure more than once these kids have been caught by thier parents running thier foul mouths and have recieved no discipline...hell I would bet some of these cretin parents think it's funny and bust out thier phones to record it for youtube! These are the kids this law was really for...for the ones born into families where the parents are too busy to care, to blinded by the notion that thier child is God's greatest gift and does no wrong, or flat out too stupid, lazy, or weak to take a look at the newest game, the one with the picture of Marcus chainsawing through some Locust and tell these brats "Hell NO". If you don't think that these kids are affected by these games then you're out of your mind.

Nowwould this lawalso "punish" some 16 year old that are way more mature than some of my peers by not letting them play video games? Yup, but if you ask me.turning off the game system and going out to do something else is never a bad thing either. I have said it more than once here and elsewhere that if I could go back I wouldn't have invested so much time in video games. If I had a child, I would hope that it wouldn't have to come to the government telling me what is good or bad for my child to consume, watch, or participate in. But as usual, in America...stupid people always ruin it for the rest of us

So at the end of the day while I would have liked to see this bill passed there is always going to be a way the people who shouldn't be playing these games, both below and above the recommended age, will always be able to get thier grubby hands on them and make the rest of us miserable and worse off for it!

"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 the 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"

Because 13 year old boys can't access the internet and watch porn riiiiight? What has forbidding really done for anything in the entertainment industry? Even if they did forbid sales of the game it's not like 13 year old's aren't going to be playing the games anyways. They don't sell M rated games to children yet children still have their parents walking into stores buying it for them, infact my parents were doing that for me at that age.

Most parents don't care and why should they? The more you try to shelter your child the more it will mess them up in the long run. Games aren't the problem and if anything they are used to help depression and anxiety for kids who are beat down constantly in real life.

[QUOTE="DJ_Lae"] Their parents have likely deemed it to be okay (or worse, don't care, though that has the same end result). Same reason why kids watch violent movies. If the law had passed, absolutely nothing would change.CammiTac

I'm actually curious about this. Would it have changed anything? From what I understand if they had passed the law that would mean declaring that video games are not an art form, but more like an illicit substance. As such video games wouldn't have the same rights in the US under the first amendment that other art forms have. Would that have changed things?

I think what he meant about things not changing was regarding parents buying their kids violent games. They could put a big ol' 18+ sticker on game boxes, but the fact of the matter is that such a thing would undoubtedly not change anything. Parents would still buy whatever violent games their kids wanted. All that law would have done is give the industry a bad kind of special treatment. No one wants that.

Games aren't the problem and if anything they are used to help depression and anxiety for kids who are beat down constantly in real life.

Going to have to respectfully disagee with you. I think games are usedby a lot of kids and older peopleas anescape from reality and keep them from not only trying to deal with thier real life problems but keep them sheltered from them which will only lead to more seriousproblems for a lot of them.

XileLord

Going to have to respectfully disagee with you. I think games are usedby a lot of kids and older peopleas anescape from reality and keep them from not only trying to deal with thier real life problems but keep them sheltered from them which will only lead to more seriousproblems for a lot of them.mission76

But couldn't the same be said of books, movies, or music? Isn't all entertainment just a means of escapism? I don't see how that's a bad thing for games, but not other forms of entertainment. They're all basically the same save for the interactive element of videogames.

You're absoulty right...however I thought we were just ranting about video games!

You're absoulty right...however I thought we were just ranting about video games!mission76

Heh. Right -- indeed we are. Guess I was getting a tad sidetracked there.

I am relieved to say the least to see SCOTUS taking this position, especially with seven out of nine justices. I was also rather surprised to see Alito siding with the majority -- I don't consider him to be a friend to the first amendment given some of his dissents in rather strong cases in the past, and it was curious that he wrote his own concurrance instead of latching onto the one released by the majority. So I took a look at what he had to say, and honestly it makes me even more surprised that he sided with the majority and the first amendment in this case. It almost seems like this was just a pet issue for him, specifically video games, and this separate concurrance left him some outs in case he wanted to treat some other medium differently in the future. That wouldn't be surprising, and it's hardly the first time he's done this sort of thing in a concurrance.

I agree that they have no right to tell us what to buy, but last time I read, they were just adding a label pointing out the content, not banning video games. I really don't see the harm it does to the gaming community.

I agree that they have no right to tell us what to buy, but last time I read, they were just adding a label pointing out the content, not banning video games. I really don't see the harm it does to the gaming community.

ChaoticThief

That's a secondary thing they are doing. Their main concern was making sure they couldn't sell to minors and that's a HUGE no-no.