Supreme Court Ruling on Cal. Law prohibiting selling violent games to minors.

Dawn - posted on 07/14/2011

The government needs to stop trying to parent our kids, It's our job and our decision. My son will be 10 In October and he Is allowed to play Halo computer games, it's violent (he's shooting aliens) he knows It's not real and he has a very limited time playing this game. It Is my job as the parent to enforce what he sees, what he does and how he acts not the government's job.

JL - posted on 07/06/2011

LOL Dyan...NO worries. I have to admit I have done that sometimes.

Rosie - posted on 07/05/2011

after i posted that i read the other comments and saw what you were talking about joy. my bad, lol

JL - posted on 07/05/2011

Movies and video games are rated the same way. They use the same ESRB type of rating system. Both are self regulated and rated by the industries. Why is it that no one is up in arms wanting to pass extra laws on movies????? The violent video games are rated for Mature and older. Retailers do NOT sell them to minors. It's parents and legal adults buying them and allowing children to play them. It is NOT the responsibility of video game makers to police our children. It's a parents responsibility to watch what their children play and make sure they are playing games that are at their maturity level. I don't want the government policing my kids for me. I will be a responsible parent and do that myself. The rating system is proficient and enough. My kids play Wii. I purchase the games and I make sure the games are rated for their maturity level. I do purchase more violent adult games for husband. Games my children never play or even see being played. I think people are not realizing that there is a rating system that retailers and makers consistently bide by and they do so by choice.

Rosie - posted on 07/04/2011

i think it's ridiculous as well. i wonder why they don't have this or rated R movies and such. what's the difference? aren't their rights being violated there as well?? it's stupid.

April - posted on 07/04/2011

I completly agree!! No matter what age group the game says, the children or teens should not be playing such violent games! I have seen sum of the games the kids are playing an there is blood, guns, shooting. What kind of things are the Society teaching them if they are exposed to games like that??!! Is it letting the kids know that it is Ok to be using such exposing weapons an violence in their lives. Its to advanced for any kid under 18 or 21!!! DEFINETLY!!

Taunya - posted on 07/04/2011

I think it's crazy.. We can restrict movies and take historical books out of library and schools but we can't restrict a violent game. Kids should have them "rights" until their of age to have the "rights" that's what parents are for. Personally that's what's wrong with our kids today is because their so called rights. Maybe would should go back in time a little.

Karla - posted on 06/28/2011

Ok, I’ve been reading through the decision and just came upon this section on pages 15 and 16 of the decision. Now I understand how this showed that the industry and general society are self-regulating the sale of video games. I feel better about the decision now.







http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10p...

JL - posted on 06/28/2011

I have to say I do have a differing opinion on this. Video games like Motion pictures are under a self rated systems. Every major retailer and video game store I have read have openly said they will not purchase and sell a video game unless it has been rated under the ESRB system. Major video game retailers are very insistent that games be viewed and rated accordingly before sold. All mature adult content violent sexual games are sold to adults and rated as such. If a parent buys that and lets their children play it well that is a case of irresponsible parenting and no supreme court ruling can control that. I have young cousins under the age of 18 and they tell me they can't go into Best Buy, Target or Game Stop and successfully buy one of the rated M17 and over games or one of the rated M18 and over games. They can buy the rated C for early Childhood, E for everyone rated, and teen rated with no problems but the mature ones they have to show proof of age. Most retailers are pretty good with enforcing their own policies that they have worked out with the Video Games Association.

While I disagree with the wording used by some of the justices (some who I dislike with a passion) I do think they set the precedent by this ruling that video games will treated with the similar forms of protection that other types of speech enjoy....books, movies and plays....and it is for that reason...that I am not in complete disagreement with the verdict. Like I said I disagree with the wording and some of the reasoning but I am viewing this through different lenses then those used by many of the Supreme Court members the..lens of censorship and the fact that a pre-existing rating system similar to that used by the Motion Picture Association is being and has been used by Video game makers and retailers.

ME - posted on 06/28/2011

"How is it different that the Motion Picture Association of America ratings and rules? (Any theories?) "

...I was thinking the same thing...

Karla - posted on 06/28/2011

I didn't read the whole ruling, but the parts I skimmed seemed to make a distinction between violence and pornography saying that pornography wasn't age appropriate and that is why it can be restricted, but not so with violence. They said "This country has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence."

Here is California's original law
"California Assembly Bill 1179 (2005), Cal. Civ. Code
Ann. §§1746–1746.5 (West 2009) (Act), prohibits the sale
or rental of “violent video games” to minors, and requires
their packaging to be labeled “18.” The Act covers games
“in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are
depicted” in a manner that “[a] reasonable person, considering the game as a whole, would find appeals to a deviant
or morbid interest of minors,” that is “patently offensive to
prevailing standards in the community as to what is suitable for minors,” and that “causes the game, as a whole, to
lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value
for minors.” §1746(d)(1)(A). Violation of the Act is punishable by a civil fine of up to $1,000. §1746.3."

I'm still having trouble seeing how that law is different than movie theater having R (underage must be accompanied by and adult) and NC-17 and NR (no admittance for under 18). That rating system is based on sex, violence, substance abuse and profanity. I KNOW some of those video games have all of that in them.

How is it different that the Motion Picture Association of America ratings and rules? (Any theories?)

Pamela - posted on 06/27/2011

Yep. I agree with Mary.

ME - posted on 06/27/2011

Sandy...I agree with the sentiment that "parents need to parent," but that's not what this ruling is about...It suggests that minors have a first amendment right to purchase whatever violent or pornographic video game they choose...If consuming is the same as speech, then shouldn't they also have a first amendment right to purchase other things that we limit for them? I mean...parents should just parent their kids, who needs drug, cigarette, and alcohol laws? Our kids have a first amendment right to consume anything they want after all, and it should be left up to parents to make decisions, not legislators or courts...

This ruling wasn't about parental responsibility or about parents rights...it was about 1st amendment rights for minors...I think it's going to be VERY problematic in the future...

Pamela - posted on 06/27/2011

It's a ridiculous ruling. My kids are minors and we do not allow much by way of gaming period. My oldest does some gaming mostly at friends houses, but not so much in our home. We have never owned a Nintendo or XBox whatever - no Wii's or anything like that. My kids now have Ipods which allow for some gaming activity, but they're relatively limited in the whole video gaming world. I tell them I don't want their brains leaking out their ears:) Of course they piss and moan about it but here's the thing, they're good at entertaining themselves - my oldest is a wicked electric bass player (he can play all of Rush and Led Zeppelin) and my youngest can tell you the flight trajectory of each flying insect in our back yard.

I agree that children do need to learn by making choices for themselves - but frankly, I am not terribly impressed by the whole video game industry. There are other ways to accomplish learning etc. Like allowing kids to experience consequences of their actions etc.

Sandy - posted on 06/27/2011

I don't think you need a court to ban the sale of violent video games, parents need to be parents, know what your kids are buying and playing, and don't let them do that if you don't want them too. Even if the law was passed, you know the kids would still get them because parents will buy them for them. If a kid buys a video game and plays it in your house, you should know it!

ME - posted on 06/27/2011

I am shocked and appalled actually...In this country, it is understood that a minor doesn't have full rights of citizenship until the age of 18. We make decisions for them all of the time, and with good reason...This doesn't sound at ALL like a 1st amendment issue to me...