Supreme Court strikes down video game law

[Stinger]

Figured this topic would be OK for the lounge ... If not then feel free to move it.


Court: Calif. can't ban violent video game sales
By JESSE J. HOLLAND, Associated Press Jesse J. Holland, Associated Press 6 mins ago

WASHINGTON – The Supreme Court says California cannot ban the rental or sale of violent video games to children.

The high court agreed Monday with a federal court's decision to throw out California's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento said the law violated minors' rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments.

The law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each infraction.

The court on a 7-2 vote said the law was unconstitutional.

More than 46 million American households have at least one video-game system, with the industry bringing in at least $18 billion in 2010.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/us_supreme_court_violent_video_games

[Pants]

I don't see anything wrong with that. There's a reason the games have a rating system. They're no different than movies.

[CoMoChief]

Gotta hand it to the state of CA....they seem to raise the bar when it comes to ridiculous legislation.

They should ban hot coffee too.....because when spilled it can be dangerous.

[CoMoChief]

I don't see anything wrong with that. There's a reason the games have a rating system. They're no different than movies.

gotta love more big government telling us what we can and can't do.

[Lzen]

Gotta hand it to the state of CA....they seem to raise the bar when it comes to ridiculous legislation.

They should ban hot coffee too.....because when spilled it can be dangerous.

Lol. The People's Republik of Kalifornia.

[Pants]

gotta love more big government telling us what we can and can't do.

WTF are you talking about? Do you go around crying about the movie rating system?

In either case, looks like the OP was changed anyway.

[Mr. Laz]

The courts are so dam weird ... limiting the sale of R-rated video games is just like not letting kids see R-rated movies or buy alcohol seems perfectly reasonable.

so the courts shoot that down :facepalm:

[Mr. Laz]

gotta love more big government telling us what we can and can't do.
umm ... reading fail?

[Dave Lane]

umm ... reading fail?

It is CoMo. His rule in life is if it can't be right I'm for it.

[Pants]

umm ... reading fail?

The OP was completely changed instead of adding an *UPDATE* like it's usually done.

Gotta love posters changing the OP of the thread after replies have already been made.

:facepalm:

[alnorth]

The courts are so dam weird ... limiting the sale of R-rated video games is just like not letting kids see R-rated movies or buy alcohol seems perfectly reasonable.

so the courts shoot that down :facepalm:

I think the movie ratings is a voluntary system just like video game ratings. There isn't a law banning kids from R-rated movies. If the movie theater wont sell the ticket, that's their business.

[alnorth]

The decision was 7-2, but that is misleading. 2 of those 7 votes would have allowed a violent video game ban to minors, if the law was more specific and restricted games that were extremely gory and disgusting. The CA law basically would have banned game sales to kids if the game involved killing or hurting anyone at all.

Scalia just barely got the 5 votes needed to kill just about any and all violent video game bans.

[Mr. Laz]

I think the movie ratings is a voluntary system just like video game ratings. There isn't a law banning kids from R-rated movies. If the movie theater wont sell the ticket, that's their business.
Doesn't matter imo it should be a law

Not drinking underage IS a law
Driving age restriction
Voting age restriction

Not letting kids do certain things until they reach a legal age is a perfectly acceptable form of legislation imo.

Just because it's a "game" doesn't mean it's for all ages.

[blaise]

As long as they still make Happy Meal toys illegal we should be ok.

[kstater]

Doesn't this essentially set a legal precedent for minors to buy porn?

[alnorth]

Doesn't matter imo it should be a law

Not drinking underage IS a law
Driving age restriction
Voting age restriction

Not letting kids do certain things until they reach a legal age is a perfectly acceptable form of legislation imo.

Just because it's a "game" doesn't mean it's for all ages.

All those things do not conflict with our strongest constitutional right. The government has a compelling reason to restrict drinking and/or driving.

There is no similar compelling reason to restrict violent video games, at the government level. As Scalia noted, our country DOES NOT have a tradition of shielding children from violence. (Scalia actually equated Mortal Kombat with Grimm's Fairy Tales, which is hard to imagine, but Scalia's always been hard-core about the first amendment)

This isn't a decision saying parents are not allowed to keep their kids from buying violent video games, its a decision saying the government has no reason or right to do that. If a parent thinks a violent video game is a harmless activity, we cant stop them from allowing their kid to buy it, and the studies have not convincingly shown a link between those games and violence in the real world.

[Mr. Laz]

Doesn't this essentially set a legal precedent for minors to buy porn?
and every other age restricted thing?

I suppose they can make the distinction that "art" is different but that would be pretty lame. Like you suggest ... pr0n falls under the "art" category too.

[alnorth]

Doesn't this essentially set a legal precedent for minors to buy porn?

I'm not aware of a law banning kids from it, I've always thought that was a voluntary industry-wide agreement where the industry wouldn't sell it.

For some reason, many of us think we have all kinds of laws restricting kids from seeing or buying stuff, but a lot of this is often a voluntary thing by the industry.

[Mr. Laz]

All those things do not conflict with our strongest constitutional right. The government has a compelling reason to restrict drinking and/or driving.

There is no similar compelling reason to restrict violent video games, at the government level. As Scalia noted, our country DOES NOT have a tradition of shielding children from violence. (Scalia actually equated Mortal Kombat with Grimm's Fairy Tales, which is hard to imagine, but Scalia's always been hard-core about the first amendment)

This isn't a decision saying parents are not allowed to keep their kids from buying violent video games, its a decision saying the government has no reason or right to do that. If a parent thinks a violent video game is a harmless activity, we cant stop them from allowing their kid to buy it, and the studies have not convincingly shown a link between those games and violence in the real world.
What a gigantic load of crap

[Pants]

I'm not aware of a law banning kids from it, I've always thought that was a voluntary industry-wide agreement where the industry wouldn't sell it.

For some reason, many of us think we have all kinds of laws restricting kids from seeing or buying stuff, but a lot of this is often a voluntary thing by the industry.

Why would the movie industry suffer losses from 15 year olds not being able to watch R-rated movies unless they were dictated to do so by the government?

[alnorth]

Why would the movie industry suffer losses from 15 year olds not being able to watch R-rated movies unless they were dictated to do so by the government?

You are asking an irrelevant hypothetical that does not apply. There is no law against kids watching R-rated movies.

[alnorth]

What a gigantic load of crap

What one of these simple facts and/or Scalia's opinion is a "gigantic load of crap".

[Hydrae]

Why would the movie industry suffer losses from 15 year olds not being able to watch R-rated movies unless they were dictated to do so by the government?

PR

[blaise]

How about you don't let your kids have those games?

[alnorth]

How about you don't let your kids have those games?

Yep, that is basically what the supreme court said.

Not the government's job, you raise your kids the way you want, and let the "I think those games are fine" parents raise their kids the way they want.

[Mr. Laz]

What one of these simple facts and/or Scalia's opinion is a "gigantic load of crap".
The whole philosophy of playing this legislation games

It's wrong but we don't want the government saying it's wrong.

It's right up there with all the political bullshit that goes on right now that makes members of congress think it's alright to block good legislation just to keep the other side of the aisle from getting credit etc.

I'm sure jAZ will be along to put the political spin on it but that still doesn't make it RIGHT.

Kids should NOT be allowed to see XXX movies
Kids should NOT be allowed to buy alcohol
Kids should NOT be allowed to MA rated video games

If parents want to buy a violent video game for their kids then that is their choice but legislation helping parent monitor the situation is perfectly acceptable.

[alnorth]

Looks like I was wrong about porn. After reading a bit more, the court back in the 60's ruled that material which is not obscene for adults can be obscene for children. (and since obscene speech is unprotected speech, the government can restrict porn sales to children)

In this decision today, the court basically drew a line in the sand and said that is it, no more. You cant wedge violence into the definition of obscenity (obscenity can only be related to sex), and we wont let you create a brand-new form of unprotected speech without a constitutional amendment.

I imagine NC-17 movies can also be restricted because of material obscene to minors. The court has never allowed restrictions based on violent depictions, and it looks like they won't allow it anytime soon.

[Mr. Laz]

Yep, that is basically what the supreme court said.

Not the government's job, you raise your kids the way you want, and let the "I think those games are fine" parents raise their kids the way they want.
bullshit,bullshit,bullshit

the parents could still allow their children to play these games under the purposed law ... THE KIDS JUST CAN'T BUY IT THEMSELVES.

The law was basically just a tool to help parents by not allowing kids to get games without them knowing.

[alnorth]

If parents want to buy a violent video game for their kids then that is their choice but legislation helping parent monitor the situation is perfectly acceptable.

The parents do not need help from the government to figure out which games are violent. There is no proof that violent video games are harmful. If one parent wants to keep their kids from buying it, that is fine but you cant impose your morality upon all parents without a very good reason for it.

[blaise]

bullshit,bullshit,bullshit

the parents could still allow their children to play these games under the purposed law ... THE KIDS JUST CAN'T BUY IT THEMSELVES.

The law was basically just a tool to help parents by not allowing kids to get games without them knowing.

So, you want a law that says a parent can't allow their children to play the games?

[alnorth]

The law was basically just a tool to help parents by not allowing kids to get games without them knowing.

Tough shit.

Its unconstitutional, so you cant pass that law, no matter how badly you want to.

[Pants]

Looks like I was wrong about porn. After reading a bit more, the court back in the 60's ruled that material which is not obscene for adults can be obscene for children. (and since obscene speech is unprotected speech, the government can restrict porn sales to children)

In this decision today, the court basically drew a line in the sand and said that is it, no more. You cant wedge violence into the definition of obscenity (obscenity can only be related to sex), and we wont let you create a brand-new form of unprotected speech without a constitutional amendment.

I imagine NC-17 movies can also be restricted because of material obscene to minors. The court has never allowed restrictions based on violent depictions, and it looks like they won't allow it anytime soon.

What about AO games?

I'm with Laz on this one. If you're a parent who thinks M+ and AO games are OK for your kids to play, go ahead and buy the software for them.

[Bump]

KIDS WHO PLAY VIOLENT GAMES TURN INTO KILLERS!


NO

everybody knows that there are evil people in this world because that stupid chick 2,000 years ago fucked that snake and the snake told her to eat an apple, THAT'S WHY MORONS!

[Mr. Laz]

So, you want a law that says a parent can't allow their children to play the games?
no ... that's not what the law said

it said that minors couldn't buy MA rated game themselves

Any parent that wanted to buy the games and let their kids play them, they could.

[Mr. Laz]

KIDS WHO PLAY VIOLENT GAMES TURN INTO KILLERS!
NO
everybody knows that there are evil people in this world because that stupid chick 2,000 years ago ****ed that snake and the snake told her to eat an apple, THAT'S WHY MORONS!
which has nothing to do with anything, dumbass

[alnorth]

What about AO games?

I'm with Laz on this one. If you're a parent who thinks M+ and AO games are OK for your kids to play, go ahead and buy the software for them.

That was basically Breyer's point. Yes, it is a restriction on 1st amendment rights, but its only a very modest restriction, because a kid could still play the game if their parent was willing to help.

The reason why that is not very persuasive to me, is if you've got a lying dishonest brat willing to go behind their parents back to THIS extent (all kids lie, but buying an expensive forbidden game?), they will find some friend's 18-year old older brother to get it for them. If the parent wants to keep their kids from playing these games, they should make it clear to them that the punishment for getting caught playing one behind their back would be severe.

[Mr. Laz]

Tough shit.

Its unconstitutional, so you cant pass that law, no matter how badly you want to.
i hope lawyers all over are firing up suits to allow kids to drive,drink,watch p0rn and every other dam thing adults do just to prove the point of what a gawd dam idiocy of some people.

the 1st amendment doesn't apply to kids the same way it applies to adults.

[alnorth]

i hope lawyers all over are firing up suits to allow kids to drive,drink,watch p0rn and every other dam thing adults do just to prove the point of what a gawd dam idiocy of some people.

the 1st amendment doesn't apply to kids the same way it applies to adults.

those things have already been decided, and there's a better reason for them. No amount of lawsuits will change that, you'd need an amendment. Kids can be restricted from drinking, driving, and seeing porn. There is no compelling reason for a blanket violence ban.

I see this exactly the same way I'd see a soda pop and fast food ban to minors. Minors can still have it, if their parents buy it, and some parents are absolute fanatics about not letting their kids have soda or unhealthy food. Hell, there's probably a bigger justification for a soda pop ban than a violence ban for minors.

In both cases, the law is annoyingly restrictive to cater to the whims of some parents. Let those parents parent their kids, they can punish them if they get their hands on something the parent didn't want them to have.

[Stinger]

The OP was completely changed instead of adding an *UPDATE* like it's usually done.

Gotta love posters changing the OP of the thread after replies have already been made.

:facepalm:

The link changed it's wording and I updated the OP the topic nor subject changed. Also the reason was given in the Update

Last edited by Stinger; Today at 09:39 AM.. Reason: link update

Gotta love not reading everything

:facepalm:

[baitism]

It bothers me that even 2 judges disagreed with the majority opinion.

Legislating morality is such a slippery slope. The courts should avoid it at all costs.

[alnorth]

It bothers me that even 2 judges disagreed with the majority opinion.

realistically, it was 4 judges. 2 judges in the majority thought the law wasn't specific enough, but would have allowed a law which more specifically described a very high amount of gore or whatever that could be restricted.

Only 5 voted for basically no restrictions at all, and that the law probably couldn't be re-written to be constitutional.

[Pants]

realistically, it was 4 judges. 2 judges in the majority thought the law wasn't specific enough, but would have allowed a law which more specifically described a very high amount of gore or whatever that could be restricted.

Only 5 voted for basically no restrictions at all, and that the law probably couldn't be re-written to be constitutional.

It's not just about gore. Certain games have a lot of titty in them and other very adult things. I don't understand why you're focusing on violence alone.

[Pants]

The link changed it's wording and I updated the OP the topic nor subject changed. Also the reason was given in the Update



Gotta love not reading everything

:facepalm:

LOL, your OP did 180 degrees after replies were made. Nobody is going to know what that "UPDATE" reason entails. Just admit that you didn't make the best possible choice there and move on.

[alnorth]

It's not just about gore. Certain games have a lot of titty in them and other very adult things. I don't understand why you're focusing on violence alone.

Because this case was about about violence.

Ginsberg v New York already covers explicit porn. The government can restrict porn to children, which probably could include most AO games.

I'd bet the only reason we have a porn sale to minors restriction is because of stare decisis, and its not worth the hassle and controversy to strike it down. If this court was asked, for the first time, about porn, they probably wouldn't restrict it. Violence restrictions for minors was never asked about before.

[Just Passin' By]

One bad law was struck down, so that's a good thing. Unfortunately, thousands more are considered valid.

[Bump]

which has nothing to do with anything, dumbass

yes it does, they are trying to say that video games makes kids violent. but everyone knows that what makes people violent is that chick that ****ed a snake 2,000 years ago and then the snake told her to eat an apple, that's what makes people violent. No really, that's what you people believe, honestly.

[gblowfish]

Doesn't this essentially set a legal precedent for minors to buy porn?

Not quite. A 13 year old can't buy a Playboy with nude women in it, but he can buy a video game that will allow him to bound, gag, torture, de-bowl and filet a woman into bits, as long as she is not showing boobage.

So, the message from the Supreme Court is clear: It's OK to turn 13 year olds into Jeffrey Dahmer, but he mustn't masturbate while doing it, because that would be immoral.

[Kraus]

Not quite. A 13 year old can't buy a Playboy with nude women in it, but he can buy a video game that will allow him to bound, gag, torture, de-bowl and filet a woman into bits, as long as she is not showing boobage.

So, the message from the Supreme Court is clear: It's OK to turn 13 year olds into Jeffrey Dahmer, but he mustn't masturbate while doing it, because that would be immoral.

What games feature that?

[blaise]

What games feature that?

Donkey Kong

[Backwards Masking]

Not quite. A 13 year old can't buy a Playboy with nude women in it, but he can buy a video game that will allow him to bound, gag, torture, de-bowl and filet a woman into bits, as long as she is not showing boobage.

So, the message from the Supreme Court is clear: It's OK to turn 13 year olds into Jeffrey Dahmer, but he mustn't masturbate while doing it, because that would be immoral.

It's like if a woman puts a penis in her mouth in movie, it's NC-17 (at best) if not flat out considered porn and banned in theatres, even if the scene lasts 3seconds.

Yet, in Hostel 2, there's a scene at the end where the girl takes a guys dick out, cuts it off with a knife (up close shot, extremely graphic) then throws it to a pack of dogs that eat it.

So the message of the people who rate movies, can't remember what they're called off the top of my head, is this - show a penis going into a mouth for pleasure, it's rated NC-17. show a penis being mutilated and thrown to a pack of dogs so the man never sees his d*ck again, it's rated R. These are the people our politicians we elected (i guess...) who are in charage of determining society's moral standards.

Anybody else see something wrong with this?

[alnorth]

Anybody else see something wrong with this?

The court would probably not allow a ban on any of it if they were asked for the first time today, but porn for minors was decided over 30 years ago, and there's not a huge outcry to un-ban it. (especially since kids these days can run circles around any internet filter and get all the hard-core porn they want)

[alnorth]

It's OK to turn 13 year olds into Jeffrey Dahmer

You have the burden of proving this before you can pass a first amendment restriction. The studies do not confirm that violent games lead to violence.

Another major problem with this law was that no one was asking for a law that banned sales of violent movies, books, or music to minors. You cant just single out video games for disfavored free-speech treatment.

[Saulbadguy]

Porn is considered obscene, with no cultural value or significance.

Video games, movies, art, books, music, by their very nature, are not obscene.

[Saulbadguy]

i hope lawyers all over are firing up suits to allow kids to drive,drink,watch p0rn and every other dam thing adults do just to prove the point of what a gawd dam idiocy of some people.

the 1st amendment doesn't apply to kids the same way it applies to adults.

Per usual, you are a moron that completely misses the point.

[alnorth]

Porn is considered obscene, with no cultural value or significance.

Video games, movies, art, books, music, by their very nature, are not obscene.

well, more accurately, porn is obscene for minors. It is not necessarily obscene for adults, though some porn might be. Thats the convoluted decision they reached in the 60's when they decided banning porn sales to children was constitutional, but banning porn sales to adults was not.