Court: Calif. can't ban violent video game sales

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let California clamp down on the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying governments lack authority to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed" despite complaints that the popular and fast-changing technology allows the young to simulate acts of brutality.

Click to expand...

Very interesting problem here. Does a state have the right to regulate the sale of violent video games to children? What about pornography? Past SCOTUS decisions on porn have relied on what is known as "community standards". But don't community standards also apply here?

Discussion?

Article is here.

Parents should be parenting. Let them control what games/images/videos the children are exposed to. It isn't the government's job to run nanny service.

tessaesque said:

Parents should be parenting. Let them control what games/images/videos the children are exposed to. It isn't the government's job to run nanny service.

Click to expand...

Maybe not, but is it the Federal Government's job to tell the states how to run themselves? This is my whole point. I thought a Conservative court would take a Conservative view on this issue.

danarhea said:

Maybe not, but is it the Federal Government's job to tell the states how to run themselves? This is my whole point. I thought a Conservative court would take a Conservative view on this issue.

Click to expand...

Well....pretty much every government regulation on product sales supercedes state regulations (marijuana in California, for example), so I'm guessing this decision was in line with those considerations.

danarhea said:

Very interesting problem here. Does a state have the right to regulate the sale of violent video games to children? What about pornography? Past SCOTUS decisions on porn have relied on what is known as "community standards". But don't community standards also apply here?

Discussion?

Article is here.

Click to expand...

I think the problem was with HOW the law was written, not the goal.

I don't like how SCOTUS overruled the States in this matter, but regardless, the law was bunk in the first place. Children presumably live with guardians and those guardians are presumably responsible for what their children do. Growing up, my cousin was not allowed to play video games at all, and his mother achieved enforcement with ease.

Movies that have R ratings don't allow kids in at theatres, but kids are free to watch them via the internet or through rental if their parents let them. Video games are not much different. And frankly, neither is porn. The parent groups need to stop with the crazy legislation because it is choosing for the parents as if they know better.

I think porn and video games are different things. All porn should be out of kid's hands as the courts have ruled. There isn't rated "E for everyone" porn, and T for teen porn (he he, teen porn), etc. Video games have clear distinctions, I mean everyone should know this by now, we parents buy them for our kids and look at the ratings, and the kids have to argue with their parents for games with certain ratings, so we should all be well versed in this. And again, who says what video game is violent? What if I consider a spongebob video game where spongebob hits people with a mallet to be violent, but I don't consider Grand Theft Auto to be violent? You really just can't ban video games... it just makes no sense. Let the parents decide.

danarhea said:

Maybe not, but is it the Federal Government's job to tell the states how to run themselves? This is my whole point. I thought a Conservative court would take a Conservative view on this issue.

Click to expand...

It's a good question......bottom line for me is that the state way overstepped their bounds but the particulars are something that makes one think about how we go about things like this.

For me, politicians need to quit thinking they are everyone's nanny's and we wont have these conundrum's.

danarhea said:

Very interesting problem here. Does a state have the right to regulate the sale of violent video games to children? What about pornography? Past SCOTUS decisions on porn have relied on what is known as "community standards". But don't community standards also apply here?

Click to expand...

We don't need protection from the government state or federal from product sale or viewing be it porn or video games.

danarhea said:

Maybe not, but is it the Federal Government's job to tell the states how to run themselves? This is my whole point. I thought a Conservative court would take a Conservative view on this issue.

Click to expand...

The right wing justices are corporatists, as they always side with the corporations.

pbrauer said:

The right wing justices are corporatists, as they always side with the corporations.

Click to expand...

The ruling was 7-2 with Thomas being one of the two.

Supreme Court rules against California's violent video game law

A proper ruling by the SCOTUS, and the first amendment is upheld for all forms of speech.

The 7-2 ruling Monday is a victory for video game makers and sellers, who said the ban -- which had yet to go into effect -- would extend too far. They say the existing nationwide, industry-imposed, voluntary rating system is an adequate screen for parents to judge the appropriateness of computer game content.

Click to expand...

California ban on sale of 'violent' video games to children rejected - CNN.com


Here is a copy of the ruling.

http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf

Re: Supreme Court rules against California's violent video game law

This was a good and lawful ruling. If parents don't want their children playing violent games then they can parent themselves and not allow their child to play it or by confiscating games they feel are harmful to their child. The state doesn't need to make these kinds of parenting decisions.

Moderator's Warning:

Merged

567890

tessaesque said:

Parents should be parenting. Let them control what games/images/videos the children are exposed to. It isn't the government's job to run nanny service.

Click to expand...

Exactly. Video games have ratings, just like movies. If parents are so clueless that they'd let an 8 yr old play a game rated "Mature, 17+ only" and actually buy it for them because the store won't sell it to the child, then they have shirked their responsibilities as parents.

A good video about the ruling I'd suggest watching.

Sessler's Soapbox: Games are Protected Speech! in High Definition

I may be wrong on this statement but last I checked California was on of the more democratic states, if not pushing on a liberal binge. Based on what you are asking the current governemnt would see it as unsatifactory if the states actually ruled on anything. Recently we have come into a more centralized government that disagrees with giving states the ability to decide on laws that they would like. Playing the non-emotional card here the fore-fathers of America would rather have seen the states governing themselves with the federal government being smaller (atleast through the first 2-3 presidents and the creation of the whig, etc parties). George Washington is qouted as saying before he dies (not verbatim) "a two party system will destroy america". Depending on how this statement is considered one could say that called for limited national government and called for states to control what they believe should be controlled or that we should always agree upon the same thing (the later we really can't succeed at). In this case the state would have the right to determine whether or not we can ban violent games, but as the second post stated its not really the states job to do that. Parents from the X and Y generations could be considered as "slackers". The generations stemming from these two generations have become acoustemed to "violent videos", "violent games", "porn", "sexual innuendo" and much much more becuase of holywood, and common day tv and games. This is not the fault of the corportation but mainly the parents. I did not see my first violent game or movie until i was fifteen years old. I am not stating im better than others but if parents do their job and censor what their children are watching and doing it may be more viable than the state banning it.

1st amendment overrides state's rights. I agree with the court: the existing system is sufficient.

danarhea said:

Very interesting problem here. Does a state have the right to regulate the sale of violent video games to children? What about pornography? Past SCOTUS decisions on porn have relied on what is known as "community standards". But don't community standards also apply here?

Discussion?

Article is here.

Click to expand...

They shouldnt be able to sell violent video games to minors unless a parent or guardian gives their permission.

Omgitsme said:

They shouldnt be able to sell violent video games to minors unless a parent or guardian gives their permission.

Click to expand...

That's already covered by law, and has been for more than a decade. Video games rated Mature cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 17.

DiAnna said:

That's already covered by law, and has been for more than a decade. Video games rated Mature cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 17.

Click to expand...

This is a common misconception, the ESRB ratings do not have the force of law behind them. But they are enforced by the industry, and is much like the MPAA. If a store doesn't follow the ESRB ratings, they could have all the games pulled from their store by the companies, much like how if a movie theatre lets kids into R rated movies, they won't be allowed to show movies rated by the MPAA anymore. What this law was trying to do, is single out video games, and put an unfair stipulation on their sale, and creation. California would have had to set up a censorship board to determine if these games were violent enough for their special rating or not, which we don't have precedent for in this country. What basically would have happened is people would have stopped selling games that qualify for that rating in California because why would a store take a chance on a fine, and potential jail time for selling a product. It would have been a huge violation of the first amendment. There are many other reasons why this law is unconstitutional, I suggest everyone read the decision, it's a good read.

DiAnna said:

That's already covered by law, and has been for more than a decade. Video games rated Mature cannot be sold to anyone under the age of 17.

Click to expand...

Yeah I know. Thats the way it should stay...

danarhea said:

Very interesting problem here. Does a state have the right to regulate the sale of violent video games to children? What about pornography? Past SCOTUS decisions on porn have relied on what is known as "community standards". But don't community standards also apply here?

Discussion?

Article is here.

Click to expand...

I'm surprised they haven't been. If the idea is to have video games regulated in much the same fashion that all other media are regulated, you'd think this'd be a no brainer. It's possible, however, that because people tend to want to regulate sales of video games based on violent conduct, rather than sexual conduct (a prerequisite for an obscenity-based ban), that the same rules would not apply.

Danaë said:

Very interesting problem here. Does a state have the right to regulate the sale of violent video games to children? What about pornography? Past SCOTUS decisions on porn have relied on what is known as "community standards". But don't community standards also apply here?

Discussion?

Article is here.

Click to expand...

I see Porn and violence in Video Games as two very different issues.

Porn has moral implications, and has been connected to serious addictions that have lead to violence afaint's women and children.

If violence is an issue then they might be forced to look at all violence in Movies, and TV.

I believe what is needed is what there is already, and that is a rating system so parents can monitor and control what their children see and do.

What we lack in society today is lack of parental control, involvement, responsibility and roll models.