Not like that ever stops our governments from attempting to do things...

Anyway, this is probably getting way more publicity than it actually merits. I mean, how many attempts have there been to ban violent video games; tons. None of them, to my knowledge, have ever worked out.

The law wanted to punish retailers for selling a game to a minor - classifying "violent games" in the same category as advlt material like pormography.

But, hey, read about the actual hearings yourself:
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/704215/supreme-court-to-decide-on-california-game-ban-law/
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/708372/supreme-court-hears-opening-arguments-in-video-game-case/
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/707834/video-games-on-trial-part-one-the-bill-that-started-it-all/
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/707915/video-games-on-trial-part-two-californias-arguments/
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/707945/video-games-on-trial-part-three-the-ema-and-esas-arguments/
http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/707995/video-games-on-trial-part-four-in-summation-looking-towards-november-2/

That bill had a lot larger implications than just "banning" the sale of "violent" video games to minors.

My first T game was Goldeneye and my first M was Turok both before I was 5, and I is a healthy lad

You are always going to get a gung-ho politician who believes that he/she can get constituent points by going after a boogy man (violent video games, in this case), so yeah, these cases are going to keep on coming up. However, video games are very popular and mainstream now, so these attempts are going to fail at earlier and earlier stages until we don't even hear about them anymore and the politicians will move on to a new boogy man.

agreed, but not matter how hard you try to ban video games, the parents of the kids that want it will buy it for them. the law will never win in this case.

The system we have in place is voluntary and retailers are not punishable by prison or fines if they inadvertently sell a "violent" game to a minor.

This is the same as with R rated and NC17 films in cinemas and on DVD.

CA tried to impose a law that would make it a criminal act to sell "violent" rated games to minors. The concern many gamers had is that if the law were not struck down, it's possible that developers would have begun to tone down violence in all games, out of an overabundance of caution and ensuring they can sell the most copies possible.

Beatrice Hahn wrote a really good anolysis of the case in the Duke law school journal
http://www.law.duke.edu/journals/djclpp/index.php?action=showitem&id=195

The name of the case was Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association. I imagine the irony of Arnold Schwarzenegger arguing that violent games should be held to a higher standard (while violent films and DVDs remain protected by free speech) was not be lost on the justices.

I think I was somewhere between 6-12 for my first T game, and 13-16 for my first M game; not because of parental objections or anything, but most M games just didn't interest me.

Anyway, I'm glad this got shot down. That bill sounded like it was extremely vague(a violent video game is "game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sixually assaulting an image of a human being" according to the article) and sounded like it could be easily abused/misused. I could have sworn, though, that M-rated games already couldn't be sold to children(which I'm fine with). :confused:

Minors, which they classify as anyone under 18. Like half the people who play M rated games in this country are under 17, it's only meant as an advisory.... we're talking about video games, not pormography.

I don't get it. Isn't this what the ESRB is for? Or are they saying games with a T rating are too violent?

There were no video games when I was 18.

The issue is precedence. No other media, save pormography, has been restricted sale to ANYONE because it would mean that that media isn't considered an art (and art is protected by the first amendment, freedom of speech, meaning it can not be restricted). To ban the sale of video games to ANYONE would be saying that video games are not considered similar to these other media which are NOT able to be restricted. Thus, video games would not be considered an art form protected by free speech. Not only could they restrict the sale of video games to minors, but they could restrict many OTHER things about it, as with any product not considered art.


The difference is that this would make it ILLEGAL. It is NOT ILLEGAL to allow a minor to watch an R rated film. It is simply an industry standard. If a start up theater wanted to show movies to anyone they wanted, the could, because the law does not restrict that.

Lol, what country do you live in cause I live in the good ol' U.S.A, and though we have more freedoms than many places, pretty far from "a free country."

Does anyone know when the whole campaign against video game violence started? Was it when mortal kombat 1 hit the arcades? I remember alot of parents pissed about that one. "Mommy I wanna play the game where the metal-faced man rips out my opponents heart."

I honestly don't recall when I first played an M rated game, I'm just sure it was well before I was supposed to be playing them.

Honestly, though, I don't see the problem if a law like this were passed, it's not like it would ban the sale of violent video games at all, it just means that you'd need to prove your of an appropriate age to buy them, it wouldn't even mean children can't play them, it just means they'd need to get their parents to buy the game for them, thus allowing parents to decide if they want their children playing M rated games or not, since minors would theoretically not be able to get them without their children knowing. It's not like the proposal says that minors aren't allowed to play violent video games at all, it certainly doesn't say violent video games should be banned entirely. Not if they start trying to ban PLAYING of violent video games for minors entirely, then there's a problem, but if even the proposal to ban the sale of violent video games to minors fails repeatedly, I can't see not letting them play them at all getting accepted.



To be fair, in the case of TV, the programs that have the same kind of content as an M rated video game probably aren't intended for children to begin with, but no one, aside from parents, can really stop children from watching them. Besides, while TV might be able to show the same things as video games in terms of violence, as far as I know, swearing and nudity needs to be censored on American TV. I'm sure if there were an effective way for the government to control what minors see on TV without outright banning any programming that might be seen as inappropriate for them, there would be people trying to get a law passed to enforce it.



I think the main difference is that it would be legally inforced, I guess not selling M rated games to minors is just store policy or something, I don't know because they don't bother with it here in Taiwan anyway, of course, the game ratings here are pretty nonsensical anyway, so I can't blame them.

It was Mortal Kombat 1 and GTA.

Funny that it wasn't the leisure suit larry series or that game, I think it was called drug wars. It was a text based drug dealing game. I guess the access to those games wasn't really there and I don't think drug wars was a commercial release.

One of my students asked this week if he could borrow my gameinformer magazine.
I told him he could not. Parents get a bit unnerved.

I have no issues with video games, many rpgs are very good ways to improve mathematics, reading comprehension, and critical thinking.

I am woman who walks into Gamestop with my kids, picks out games, and swipes my gamercard. As unattended, unsupervised minors, rifling through games they can never buy, look on sadly. I hear them whisper "did you see that?" Where the hell are their parents?
Video games don't cause people to go off the deep end and become a danger. Sadly, the signs are there far before a calamity occurs, and all too often, the loved ones around the wackjobs have not been observant enough. Videogames are a convenient scapegoat for those unwilling to accept responsibility.

:lol:

But seriously. It wouldn't be unconstitutional if it was banned for minors. And it should probably happen. Just look how the kids are these days. They don't need M rated games to further their messed up in the head-ness.

Yeah like M rated games are any worse than the drugs, music, and television the bad kids get into. :rolleyes:

Parents should do their job, government need not interfere. No sense punishing the actual mature adolescents who play games for entertainment.

I played Doom when I was 5. I always used iddqd back then of course, but still M rated at 5.

I don't even think I had played anything considered T until the 6-12 age range.

Agreed!

Minors aren't allowed to buy alcohol or cigarettes until 21 and 18 (at least where I live), and IMO I think it's not only a good idea, but it's a great idea restricting the sales of violent video games to minors. Those ratings that we see on those video game boxes are there for a reason you know.

I'm not trying to be an old fuddy duddy, but I have sat there and watched all of my nephews sit there and play these same games as young as 11 when it is absolutely inappropriate for people at that age, regardless of how mature one feels that they are.

If parents don't, or can't be bothered to actually be the parent and say no to their children, then somebody has to step up and say no. Ideally, I would rather the parents have that resonsability, but that often is not the case now.

It's already in place here too. My local gamestop wouldn't sell me M-rated games without one of my parents present until I was 17 (ESRB M-rated is 17+), and they even knew me pretty well.

I see your sarcasm meter is broken....

All I really wanted to impart with my post was that it would not be unconstitutional to ban violent video game sales to minors. But yes, it's the parents job not the governments.

That's just store policy. However they won't be fined 1,000 bucks for selling to a minor.


Beginning a post with "but seriously" usually does not denote sarcasm.

The only places that DON'T have that policy are the small town independent used games stores, and those are a dying breed.