Supreme Court to Rule on CA Video Game Law

So what exactly does this law do? Please excuse my ignorance, but I thought that retailers were already not supposed to sell M-rated games to those under the age of 17.

Does this law make it to where you cannot sell T-rated games to kids under the age of 17? Or does it make the punishment more harsh for retailers failing to abide by current laws.

Sorry but I'm a bit confused here. I've never been to Cali either.

Wow October? Thats a while.. I remember when I was a little kid I bought turok 2. (little kid being 11-12) The guy joked at wal-mart at whether I had the money or not.. When I was 19 I bought castle wolfenstein for GBA and got carded.. My parents always watched me playing my games and would talk to me every once in a while about some of them that were really violent like cutting guys head's off in turok 2.. They knew it was their responsibility not the freaken store's.

As a gamer, I personally think this law is really gay. Luckily I'm old enough to buy any game I want.

Yeah... no thank you. I like my violent video games and there shouldnt be anything stopping me unless im like mentally impared.

I swear porn is often more socially acceptable than violent video games. I'm all for educating parents about violent video games, but why does the government have to be involved in this shit? The game industry already has a self rating policy. -1 for California.

Ok ....they should ban also news on tv because they show violence also. I always wondered how come there is no sexual acts in video games (show it all )but chopping heads and killing people GTA style is normal.

I'm not sure if it's actually law at the moment, but rather company policy for the time being. But for the most part you are right. I've seen so many retailers being lax on the rules and just selling games to kids without checking IDs or having an adult present. (I do live in California).

If I were a game developer, I'd welcome this because it would get my content into more minds. It's like underage drinking. People do it mostly because they're not supposed to and they find a way around the system.

Let the parents parent their children. The state of California need not tell parents what content is suitable or not suitable for their children. That is the role of the mother and/or father.

But, I'm ignorant on this subject. I have no idea what this law does or how it is different from current laws barring minors from purchasing M-rated games. Anyone care to enlighten me?

$10 the Scalia/Thomas block votes on the loosing side of a 7-2 decision and claim that the law is in fact valid.

What? Simply following their voting pattern...

Do children even have constitutional rights? The right to bear arms for example? This is irrelevant.

Currently the game industry regulates itself through the ESRB Rating system. This is what you see on game boxes, the "E for Everyone, T for Teen, M for Mature" etc. The video game industry is self regulated, much like the MPAA for Movie Ratings. Industries do this to AVOID having Government regulation because it's a huge pain in the a$$. Right now game developers, publishers, and everyone in between are watching this because they don't want to have any more red tape or regulations that would ultimately affect sales and revenue.

I'm for regulation of violent video games, violent movies/music, etc, but let the industries regulate themselves. It's worked fine so far; How does the saying go? If it's not broken, don't fix it?

I guess people (law makers or...) believe that having sex is more evil than killing people.....>_<

.....

So when are they going to pass a law for parents failing to be parents and paying attention to what their kids are doing, rather than making cops and store owners the baby sitters?

I live in California, and this law is totally stupid. just let parents control their children.

I fully agree with you (well... at least most of them). My only problem is... it appeasrs to me that there are more and more parents are not actually parenting their kids responsibly these days?... that does not really rationalize this case. However it does look worrisome to me.

Are you serious? Of course children have constitutional rights. Just because various rights obtain only at the age of majority doesn't mean that they have no constitutional rights at all.

Moreover, the only irrelevant point here is yours, given that no one is arguing that the law infringes on a child's right to free speech. The argument is that the law unconstitutionally violates the 1st Amendment rights of the publishers, distributors, and sellers by banning sales to a particular group of people - children.

Reading the article, or even the Tom's Guide summary, might have helped you sort that one out. Ought to give that a try next time.

In India, this happens all the time, the gov acting as the principally ambigious moral police

looks like since the parents won't take control the Govenator will.

What is with everything using gay as a derogatory term. Seesh.

Of course they do, why would you think otherwise?

Yet, if you're in Europe, the situation is more or less reversed.

I just wish the government would step in and tell us what we can and can't watch so I didn't have to put some much work into deciding what is appropriate for me and what isn't.

Unfortunately....




Not really. Go learn about "Parens Patriae".

I do not see any issue with this bill. Parents are not supposed to be letting minors play these games, correct? So if they are not supposed to play the games in the first place then what is wrong with tighter retail restrictions of sale? This bill simply helps parents.

That is not a response to my claim that generally, children are "people" to whom the U.S. Constitution, and the Amendments thereto, apply. Parens patriae generally allows the government to take action on behalf of a child - it permits legal proceedings to be instituted on behalf of children when necessary (i.e., in the case of abandonment/neglect, incapacity, etc.), and is constrained by a number of other laws. It is hardly broad-sweeping authority for a state to take any and all actions on behalf of children that it wants.

Your reference to this doctrine as evidence of how children don't have constitutional rights is completely misplaced. Just because the government, or a parent, or a school, can in some cases curb what a minor is or is not allowed to do, does not mean that the Constitution doesn't apply to them at all.

None of this changes my point from earlier, which is that the case being made on appeal to the Supreme Court isn't about the rights of children or parents. It is a 1st Amendment claim by the video game and retail industries.

Doesn't matter how dumb they are. Not our place to tell them how to raise their children. I agree that there are way too many morons procreating and our country is getting dumber and dumber but we let these people vote so let's let them raise their kids.

So? It's not like minors don't rent/buy adult films and magazines. They just ask a friend or relative to do it for them.

I remember playing the "Ultra-Violence" mode in Doom 1 and 2 when I was eight. I turned out just fine.

What an Irony... fiction and really at is best

I don't have a problem with this law although it makes relatively no sense at all to have this law in place in the USA, let alone California of all states in the union. I don't have a problem with it primarily because there's better things to spend money on than stupid video games. And also the kids could be doing better things with their time than sitting in front of a tv set. These days, kids spend dramatically more time playing these things than I did when I was in school. Sure I had a nintendo and whatnot but I wasn't vegetating in front of it. I was studying up until I went to bed a lot of the time and I was just barely on the honor roll. But at least I learned more than these kids do these days.

Wait so you guys think its ok for a 12-15 year to buy M or R rated games? Its impossible for a parent to monitor their kids 24/7. How many of you actually have kids?

What happened to parental responsibility?

It's a known fact that dumber people have more kids.