Poll: Violent Game Law Goes To Supreme Court

[direkiller]

http://gameon.msn.com/articles/4753/Violent-Game-Law-Goes-To-Supreme-Court

Basically California wants to fine retailers that sell M rated games to underage kids.
Personalty I don't care ether way as most stores I have been asked for ID if I was buying an M rated game when i was about 18 so i guess its doing nothing but enforcing an already accepted practice.

I do hope games get protection under the first amendment which seems to be the argument behind the court case from the looks of it.

Edit:

This is the US, making it a first (and apparently a 14th) amendment issue. If this law gets through, every other anti-game law will get reconsidered and then we're going to get true game censorship. Add in that the state of California is bankrupt and is paying for the game industry's legal bills on this already (they are already up over $280,000) and that every time a law like this is passed, the Supreme court has declared it unconstitutional (time and time again.) The article also isn't showing the whole law, just the parts that make it sound reasonable. It's not showing the part where the state gets to set the ratings, not the ESRB (which is the most effective entertainment regulatory body in the US.) Also keep in mind that this law was written by the same moron that wanted a health warning on all games rated above E10 stating that there was a causal link between video games and violent behavior in children (which has been repeatedly debunked by science.)

Quoting because it sheds more light on the bill and why its being shot down by the corts

 

[Flying-Emu]

http://gameon.msn.com/articles/4753/Violent-Game-Law-Goes-To-Supreme-Court

Basically California wants to fine retailers that sell M rated games to underage kids.
Personalty I don't care ether way as most stores I have been asked for ID if I was buying an M rated game when i was about 18 so i guess its doing nothing but enforcing an already accepted practice.

I do hope games get protection under the first amendment which seems to be the argument behind the court case from the looks of it.

Hell fucking yes. Children shouldn't be allowed to buy porn, and they sure as hell shouldn't be able to buy games with it (without parental consent, of course.)

 

[Julianking93]

Meh, as long as I can still get them, that's fine.

Besides, I'll be of legal age in September so it doesn't really affect me.

 

[mweissm]

I agree because perents should know what their kids are playing, imagine if you were eight and your mom walked in on you playing gears of war using the chainsaw gun.

 

[pelopelopelo]

http://gameon.msn.com/articles/4753/Violent-Game-Law-Goes-To-Supreme-Court

Basically California wants to fine retailers that sell M rated games to underage kids.
Personalty I don't care ether way as most stores I have been asked for ID if I was buying an M rated game when i was about 18 so i guess its doing nothing but enforcing an already accepted practice.

I do hope games get protection under the first amendment which seems to be the argument behind the court case from the looks of it.

Hell fucking yes. Children shouldn't be allowed to buy porn, and they sure as hell shouldn't be able to buy games with it (without parental consent, of course.)

That's putting a huge onus on the parents to not be fucking idiots though, isn't it? Are we sure they're up for the responsibility of kids AND decisions like these?

 

[phar]

Yeah the rating system is in place for a reason. I was never asked for ID when getting a game growing up.

No matter how you look at it kids are playing more mature games earlier.

 

[Flying-Emu]

http://gameon.msn.com/articles/4753/Violent-Game-Law-Goes-To-Supreme-Court

Basically California wants to fine retailers that sell M rated games to underage kids.
Personalty I don't care ether way as most stores I have been asked for ID if I was buying an M rated game when i was about 18 so i guess its doing nothing but enforcing an already accepted practice.

I do hope games get protection under the first amendment which seems to be the argument behind the court case from the looks of it.

Hell fucking yes. Children shouldn't be allowed to buy porn, and they sure as hell shouldn't be able to buy games with it (without parental consent, of course.)

That's putting a huge onus on the parents to not be fucking idiots though, isn't it? Are we sure they're up for the responsibility of kids AND decisions like these?

If the parents are idiots and want to raise their children as such, fine. But at least they have to be active in their child's life. As it is now, it's ridiculous that a ten year old can go in and buy Gears of War 2 and Manhunt.

 

[BehattedWanderer]

Totally. I would also support legislation that rewarded an informative schpiel that informs parents of what they are buying their kids, so that they are aware. We can make it part of the compendium of Things You Can Buy on Your 18th Birthday (smokes, porn, movie tickets, shotgun/rifle (no handguns until 21), a proper license, dry ice...). It can be tradition!

 

[Pielikey]

You can already get in legal trouble for selling M rated games to minors. A fine isn't a huge difference.

 

[Srkkl]

Good, gives even less argument for whiny fat moms.

 

[Schneizel]

Hell fucking yes. Children shouldn't be allowed to buy porn, and they sure as hell shouldn't be able to buy games with it (without parental consent, of course.)

There is no rational reason to prevent children seeing porn.

 

[ygetoff]

I don't see the reason for a big uproar here. It's already illegal to sell games to minors, so actually having a punishment in place for breaking that law makes sense.
However, games getting First Amendment rights is a good thing, so I'm torn here.

 

[WrcklessIntent]

I honestly didn't even know this was a problem. All my local gamestops never sell to me and i'm 16 and i'm just like really man you can't just give me the game

 

[Tdc2182]

Good, gives even less argument for whiny fat moms.

You are at 1234 posts while I am writing this.

OT: I thought for a sec that it was going to charge stores more money if they sold M rated games. Had me worried for a sec.

Good. Old haters might shut there triple chins.

 

[Logic 0]

Well if it works it could reduce the number of annoying kids online.

 

[Mr. Gency]

http://gameon.msn.com/articles/4753/Violent-Game-Law-Goes-To-Supreme-Court

Basically California wants to fine retailers that sell M rated games to underage kids.
Personalty I don't care ether way as most stores I have been asked for ID if I was buying an M rated game when i was about 18 so i guess its doing nothing but enforcing an already accepted practice.

I do hope games get protection under the first amendment which seems to be the argument behind the court case from the looks of it.

Hell fucking yes. Children shouldn't be allowed to buy porn, and they sure as hell shouldn't be able to buy games with it (without parental consent, of course.)

That's putting a huge onus on the parents to not be fucking idiots though, isn't it? Are we sure they're up for the responsibility of kids AND decisions like these?

But that means that when a child beats up someone and says "But I did it in Splinter Cell." the only ones to blame are the parents.

I say go for it.

 

[Altorin]

while I HATE to see anything even smelling like game censorship hit the supreme court of the US.. I agree with the concept.. but I don't like the government having a word in something that squarely falls in a parenting concern.. As long as it's a tight law with very little room for expansion.. and as long as the fines are not redonkulous (don't need to create a store that just wont sell games at all for fear of getting fined), and as long as parents have the option to buy violent games for their children without it becoming "contributing to the delinquency of a minor".. then I guess I'm ok with it.

If any of those things are fucked up though, this is a VERY bad thing if it passes.

I don't see the reason for a big uproar here. It's already illegal to sell games to minors, so actually having a punishment in place for breaking that law makes sense.
However, games getting First Amendment rights is a good thing, so I'm torn here.

that's just the thing, it's not "illegal" yet. Any policy against selling to minors is handled by the stores

 

[ygetoff]

while I HATE to see anything even smelling like game censorship hit the supreme court of the US.. I agree with the concept.. but I don't like the government having a word in something that squarely falls in a parenting concern.. As long as it's a tight law with very little room for expansion.. and as long as the fines are not redonkulous (don't need to create a store that just wont sell games at all for fear of getting fined), and as long as parents have the option to buy violent games for their children without it becoming "contributing to the delinquency of a minor".. then I guess I'm ok with it.

If any of those things are fucked up though, this is a VERY bad thing if it passes.

I don't see the reason for a big uproar here. It's already illegal to sell games to minors, so actually having a punishment in place for breaking that law makes sense.
However, games getting First Amendment rights is a good thing, so I'm torn here.

that's just the thing, it's not "illegal" yet. Any policy against selling to minors is handled by the stores

Really? I've gotten asked for my ID at multiple franchises (this was when I wasn't very clear on the rule, and just thought it was the store clerk acting on their own).

 

[armaina]

I have no problems with putting rules on selling games to certain ages. You can't sell a Rated R movie to minors, so why sell rated M games? Maybe a fine will finally kick all gamestores into checking ID for Mature game sales.

 

[direkiller]

while I HATE to see anything even smelling like game censorship hit the supreme court of the US.. I agree with the concept.. but I don't like the government having a word in something that squarely falls in a parenting concern.. As long as it's a tight law with very little room for expansion.. and as long as the fines are not redonkulous (don't need to create a store that just wont sell games at all for fear of getting fined), and as long as parents have the option to buy violent games for their children without it becoming "contributing to the delinquency of a minor".. then I guess I'm ok with it.

Fines are $1000

Here is a quote from the governator so i think he has that in mind

"Today I signed legislation to ensure parent involvement in determining which video games are appropriate for their children," said Governor Schwarzenegger. "The bill I signed will require that violent video games be clearly labeled and not be sold to children under 18 years old. Many of these games are made for adults and choosing games that are appropriate for kids should be a decision made by their parents."

here is a link to the article i pulled it from http://pc.ign.com/articles/656/656998p1.html