News: High court strikes down California video game ban
- Thread starter airplanedude550
- Start date
Recommended Videos
I understand that we should be all excited about the free speech blah blah blah, but hasn't anyone questioned why California felt this was necessary?
The ratings on games are still legal age restrictions( as with DVDs, alcohol and tobacco) so this hasn't really changed much. Even if the law did come into effect people would still buy the restricted games for minors, as they do with other stuff. All that's happened is people will now ignore the current law because this one was removed.
I completely disagree with the Supreme Court's decision. They should've allowed a ban on minors buying games with ratings indicating the lack of suitability for them - it's common sense.
If anything, we've lost. Minors will still play games unsuitable for them and us gamers will still get blamed.
The ratings on games are still legal age restrictions( as with DVDs, alcohol and tobacco) so this hasn't really changed much. Even if the law did come into effect people would still buy the restricted games for minors, as they do with other stuff. All that's happened is people will now ignore the current law because this one was removed.
I completely disagree with the Supreme Court's decision. They should've allowed a ban on minors buying games with ratings indicating the lack of suitability for them - it's common sense.
If anything, we've lost. Minors will still play games unsuitable for them and us gamers will still get blamed.
Who are you to decide what games are appropriate for other people's children? Are you really comparing video games with alcohol and tobacco? Do you really support the false notion that it is the fault of gamers that kids play violent video games? Really?Cpt_Oblivious said:
I'm no one to decide what's appropriate. The guys who's job it is to assess age-appropriateness for such products are, however.Hobo Hunter1001 said:
Not directly as an insinuation of harmful effects but both products gain age restrictions so I use them for comparison.
I never said that - don't make assumptions. I blame the parents and the people who allow them to play them without knowing what the game's like, allowing children to be exposed to unsuitable content. However, it's those people who should be blamed that get outraged and gain media coverage and popular support, shifting the blame onto us gamers.
You do realize that the whole point of this court case was that there is no law restricting the sale of (non-pornographic) media to minors, whether it be videogames, movies, or books, right? The problem with the California law was that it singled out videogames as something that can be censored by the government, and if it had been upheld, it would have set a precedent for censoring other things, like movies.Cpt_Oblivious said:
Uh...no.Cpt_Oblivious said:
Here in the states, it is illegal to sell tobacco, alcohol, firearms, and pornographic/obscene material to minors. There is actually no legal obligation involved with non-pornographic film sales to minors, MPAA regulation (like ESRB regulation) is self-regulated within the industry and voluntarily enforced by vendors.
This decision doesn't "override" ESRB restrictions or prohibit vendors from denying the sale of T, M, and AO titles to those who don't fulfill its age restriction. What this decision does do is state that selling T, M, and AO titles to minors cannot be prohibited by the state, as that would comprise an unacceptable restriction to speech. This is the same standard as exposure to any other non-obscene violent media.
Eacaraxe said:
Ah, then I apologise for my uninformed opinions. However, I still wonder whether they did the right thing as a 7 year old, with correct money, could go and buy an 18-rated (or your US equivalent) without issue. Surely that should be changed, at least to require an adult purchase it for them?Owyn_Merrilin said:
Though maybe I'm used to the UK, where I've seen a fair few salespeople in HMV or Game refuse to sell age-restricted materials to youths without ID.
Well that's the thing -- the game industry manages to police itself as far as selling games to minors. Generally speaking, if you go to buy an M-rated videogame, you will get carded. The only exceptions that I know of are mom and pop stores that make most of their money selling things other than videogames -- mostly record stores and thrift shops, and even then they're likely to refuse sale to a minor, unless the clerk has no idea what they're selling. I'm 21 and have a full beard, and Gamestop still cards me every time I go to buy a new game. As a matter of fact, the ESRB system is better enforced than not only the MPAA system (film ratings) but it compares favorably to alcohol and tobacco enforcement, something that actually is enforced by law. There's a quote from the ruling, something to the effect that 20% of minors have bought an M rated game without consent from a parent, while 18% have bought tobacco -- a 2% increase in compliance for something that is heavily enforced, to the point of police involvement.Cpt_Oblivious said:
Actually, while they're doing this, they should also lower the required age restriction for buying alcohol, cigs, or whatever to 18. Now, I know that you guys probably won't believe me when I say that I hate drinking, smoking, etc. but I support freedom more than restrictions.