Supreme Court Gives Video Games An Important Decision

Also a big win for people who like to take responsibility as parents and guardians. Don't want your kids playing a certain game? Don't let them buy it. We don't need our government to do that, silly.

16 up, 0 down

Unfortunately there is a segment of our population who feels that people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves and wish to use the Government as means to force us to live with the decisions our Overlords impose on us. I fear for our future.

13 up, 4 down

Given the % of the US population currently in jail, or serving a suspended sentence, there can in fact be no doubt that "people are too stupid to make decisions for themselves". Sad, but true.

12 up, 9 down

Which pales in comparisons to those who are not in jail, those who make a decent honest living and raise their kids in happy homes so your point is moot.

9 up, 4 down

Not really, look at the prison populations in other western democracies and see whether you think there is a problem. People are, unfortunately, often extremely stupid in their judgement, often they show no judgement at all. Sometimes laws are needed to proactively enforce a sense of judgement. For example speed laws. After all, by your logic we should all be able to choose our driving speed, and having signs and law enforcement stopping use from driving at 100 mph in a residential area is just burdensome and wrong.

13 up, 12 down

So what are you getting at then? Because of a few screw ups the majority of should suffer under the State's idea of what is right for us instead of it being left up to us to choose for ourselves?

No offense, but that is utter nonsense and it's the antithesis to the American ideal. I'm not going to debate this any further with you as you seem incapable of viewing these issues without your Government Rose Colored glasses. We are a nation of Free men/woman Highlander. Your big government philosophy has failed throughout history and it will fail again.

10 up, 8 down

I'm sorry Highlander but choosing your own driving speed which could put you and everyone around you in immediate danger is very different then the government telling you what video games your child can play.

9 up, 0 down

Well guys, whether we like it or not, Big Government is here, and it's going to run our lives to the point of almost being forced.

10 up, 2 down

Maybe having a bit of both? I don't want the government choosing my meals for me, but i don't want people speeding past my house. How about an equilibrium?

7 up, 0 down

Incarcerated felons in prisons by and large lose voting privileges. Their say doesn't amount to much in America.

4 up, 0 down

The government provides and maintains the roads that we drive on, so yes, they get a say as to how fast we get to drive on them.

3 up, 0 down

People ARE too stupid to make decisions for themselves. Evidence: CoD.

13 up, 1 down

World, you forgot one.

As evident by the purchase of the 360.

10 up, 4 down

Nothing is true. Everything is permitted. We are all being run by a big government under capitalist ideals!!! We just don't know it!!!! YES! If there's anything I've learned from the 100% non-fictional Assassin's Creed series, it's that teaching of freedom's Jawk talks about is exactly what enslaves us! UNWITTINGLY!!!! Jawk!!! The piece of Eden! IT CONTROLZ YOU!!!!!!!!!!!


AHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!

---

Last edited by Underdog15 on 6/27/2011 7:54:34 PM

3 up, 2 down

uderdog you forgot 1 thing our capitalistic ideas are falling and there is a sub communist rise in the government.the increase in laws (which limits our freedoms) the bigger the government is further from the original ideas of our fathers where the federal government is the so called spine which connects the body (states) the more the federales get involved the further from a true republic we become. yes we are a republic not a democracy.

0 up, 0 down

jeeze, I was just making a joke via video game reference.

0 up, 0 down

its all good underdog, it just saddens me that such a great country from a great idea has turned to crap from power hungry obtuse imbeciles. and how everyone wants more and more laws that limit our personal freedoms and people dont care anymore.....its very saddening

0 up, 0 down

It was private citizens who decided that violent video games are dangerous to the youth and told their representatives to do something about it. Am I right or am I wrong?

The Government isn't only the slave of the capitalist special interests, but the people as well.

Sometimes it isn't government that comes up with ways to enslave the citizens, it is the citizens themselves.

If parents were omniscient regarding their kids' they wouldn't be calling on the government to help them control what their kids watch and play.

---

Last edited by pillz81 on 6/30/2011 12:19:01 PM

2 up, 0 down

Sheesh! It's about time! This is awesome news, and we all should be grateful that the "Govenators" agenda failed! Long live the Bill of Rights!
You can take my violent video games when you pry my controller from my cold dead hands!

OK, so this comment borders on disturbing, but you get the point!

10 up, 0 down

I remember signing their petition. It was for the state of California, but all Americans, and even Canadians, were allowed to sign the petition.

Can't say I'm surprised, but I am happy to hear it's at least gone as well as it has.

3 up, 0 down

While I agree there should be some limitations on what kids are viewing, I do not feel the State should set those limitations. We live in a free society(supposedly)and decisions like this should be left up to the parents and the retailers selling the content(Walmart and Target and most Gamestops in my area already refuse M rated game sales to minors without burdensome laws and regulations),NOT our Overlords who work for State and Federal bureaucracies.

9 up, 4 down

Agree 100%. There is very little accountability and responsibilty these days. If you're a parent you have every right to deny what your kids watch/play/are exposed to. Unfortunately it seems quite a few are too lazy to actually act as a parent, and want their governments to do it for them.

3 up, 0 down

While I do agree about movie and game sales, I don't believe censorship of Books and Music should be. I absolutely hate listening to a Radio Friendly version of any song. I mean if the artist wanted me to hear what they said, that is their right to say it and my right to hear it. I remember an interview with a local resident calling a local radio station here in Indiana and she was complaining because the songs were getting to risque for tastes and the DJ went off on her and told her it was her responsibility to watch what her kids listen to.

4 up, 2 down

"Walmart and Target and most Gamestops in my area already refuse M rated game sales to minors without burdensome laws and regulations"

Jawknee, if by this you mean that they card you - the purchaser - then I fail to see how this is burdensome. Carding is voluntarily done already in most places, how is it more burdensome if it's the law?

4 up, 7 down

It's burdensome to me as the consumer and burdensome to those employees who don't feel comfortable asking a 30 year old man with a beard for his ID when buying a video game. I'm not saying it shouldn't be done, all I am saying is the State doesn't need to impose such regulations with new bureaucracies being funded by tax payers. The stores do it just fine by themselves. More Government isn't the answer Highlander.

9 up, 3 down

Yeah, real burdensome, you already have your wallet out to pay. Gee, what does it take, 10 seconds. Wow, that's one heck of a burden you're under there my friend. Seems to me that your perspective might be a little distorted if you think that's burdensome. Now, if they were making you endure an enhanced pat down prior to buying the game, I could see your point, but a 10 second task of showing the ID in your wallet that is already in your hands? Not so much.

6 up, 8 down

And who will enforce this if not another government agency funded by tax payers? Doesn't matter if it takes me 10 seconds or 20 minutes. It's still a burden we should haven't to bare living in a free society. We make our own choices in life the United States Highlander. The state doesn't get to make them for us.

7 up, 4 down

I wish they wouldn't card me. Bystanders are all like "jeesh, what's this pervert buying?"
Then I turn around and show them my copy of Catherine and I instantly confirm their condeming convictions.

Seriously, though. I find it annoying like Jawknee does.




*Temjin will never buy Catherine. example was used for demonstration purposes only.

8 up, 0 down

Jawknee,

The point of this discussion has long since been lost in your absolutist sense of freedom, but I do note that you maintain your outrage over being carded for a game purchase, truly a significant stand for civil rights. I'm out, this is ludicrous.

6 up, 7 down

Riiiiiight, you presume the Statists should dictate how the majority lives their lives based on the size of our prison population(which is minuscule in comparison to the rest of the population who follow the laws and are productive) and you think not wanting to show an ID to buy a video game is analogous to removing speed limits which can, will and have killed people and I'm the one who is being ludicrous? LOL!

You take note of what you precieve to be my "human rights causes", I'll take note of your eagerness to use the State to impose your world view on the rest of us who do not agree and to use tax payer funds to do it.

---

Last edited by Jawknee on 6/27/2011 3:46:03 PM

7 up, 6 down

if you really want to go into the prison thing than highlander your point is flawed for one reason true prison pop is high but over 25%is not even legal u.s citizens so you should not compare that with the rest of the legal u.s citizens and the other half is from gangbangers and now state and federal politicians, and true there are petty crimes people do go to prison for homeless people in winter try going to jail sometimes to get out of the cold and how about the gentleman who robbed a bank for a dollar so he could go to prison to receive health care?

0 up, 1 down

That is one long-ass sentence!

1 up, 0 down

Wow, that's pretty depressing (and sad) if what you are saying is true mindmurderer. In this day and age, someone could be so desperate for medical attention that they feel they have no other choice but to commit a crime in order to get adequate health care. He's lucky he didn't get shot!

0 up, 0 down

Hoping for three-year sentence
James Verone said he doesn’t have medical insurance. He has a growth of some sort on his chest, two ruptured disks and a problem with his left foot. He is 59-years-old and with no job and a depleted bank account, he thought jail was the best place he could go for medical care and a roof over his head. even free clinics are not free. this homeless kid went to one around where i live and they wanted $300 just to look at his teeth, where as my woman who had a crappy min wage job 10hrs a week or less had to pay $20 dollars

0 up, 0 down

Wow...that's pretty sad.
Thanks for taking the time to explain the situation with that man, mindmurderer.

0 up, 0 down

Awww man. Just when I thought we were going to be one step closer to being serialized with only a number as our identity and grown in governmental test tubes.

=p

4 up, 0 down

Last time I checked, it's been illegal to sell a rated M game to minors forever. Well at least in Indiana you have to be 18 to purchase M rated games. I don't see it any different than porn, which I mean come on the internet lets you have it for free anyways. IDK maybe it's how I comprehended this article, but it sounded like You can now sell Rated M games to kids under 18, please someone help me here, I'm just a little confused with this. I'm all for the freedom to create the game however you want, but is this case referring to Which games are sold in stores or how the game themselves are made?

1 up, 4 down

The case refers to selling games. In my mind the thing is, I have no problem with states of the government applying the same rules to M rated games as apply to R rated movies. To me they are essentially the same thing and the same problems and issues surround them. But it stops there. The M rated games are just like R-rated movies. They belong on sale for mature adults to enjoy, but not kids. I don't know the specific provisions of the law that California passed, but as far as I can see, the problem was that the law was attempting to treat M rated games differently from R Rated movies. That effectively holds games to a different standard than other forms of expression.

Once you're beyond the point of sale, it's down to the parents. If the parents decide to buy an M-rated game for their 14-year old, let them deal with the consequences.

---

Last edited by Highlander on 6/27/2011 1:43:18 PM

2 up, 0 down

OH gotcha thanks for the answer instead of a thumbs down Highlander haha Yeah I had to have my brother buy my video games forever. You can get fined as a video game retailer for selling rated M games in Indiana, IDK about other state laws, but that's the way it's always been here.

2 up, 3 down

Does Indiana treat R-rated movies sold on DVD/BluRay in the same way? If not, things could change there too, since this decision sets a very clear precedent.

As it happens, I think that just as is the case in some states for R rated movies and for the sale of other things like cigarettes and alcohol, you should be carded to purchase an M-rated game. But the key thing is that games should not be held to a stricter interpretation of the law than other forms of expression such as music, motion pictures or video.

Personally, I have no problem at all with the idea of people being carded before being sold an M rated game. It's M rated for a reason, and it would serve the gaming industry to keep a clear line between games suitable for kids and games suitable for others.

---

Last edited by Highlander on 6/27/2011 1:50:25 PM

0 up, 1 down

Rated R movies kind of slip through the cracks as it's not really held in high focus here. Movies don't sell well here. I had a friend in the electronic department of Wal-Mart here in Greencastle and he said he never gets people who buy physical movies, it came up in an discussion about digital distribution and how secure he felt about his job a few months back. It serves well to evidence that movies aren't really as hawk eyed by parents coalitions trying to stop the distribution of violent movies. Games however are still bought pretty heavily, and therefore still heavily watched over. We never have to sign anything, just show them the ID for a birthdate. It's not a real hassle. Hell I even get away with buying cigarettes here and I'm 17, though I'd credit that to the atmosphere in which I live.

1 up, 2 down

Yes, OWNED!

3 up, 0 down

...the majority opinion said California couldn't verify that "the Act’s restrictions meet the alleged substantial need of parents who wish to restrict their children’s access to violent videos. The video-game industry’s voluntary rating system already accomplishes that to a large extent."

So basically, after reaffirming that games are just as valid an form of expression as movies, the justices also say that parents can apply parental control based on the existing rating system without the need for some additional external legislation that treats games differently to movies. Throwing the responsibility for a child's entertainment choice back onto the parent - where it belongs.

Nice.

4 up, 1 down

Now I can't wait to see what Rockstar does next.

3 up, 0 down

hee hee ;)

4 up, 0 down

I'd like to think this will shut up the rabble-rousers for good, but sadly I know this isn't the case. Unfortunately, they're probably just going to try to come up with another solution and waste all sorts of money trying to push it through when it's just going to get turned down again. Well at least this sends a message that it's not the government's responsibility to raise children for lazy parents.

0 up, 0 down

V for Victory!!

Nice choice of pictures Ben.

0 up, 0 down

A good day for America. =)

3 up, 0 down

I think Jack Thompson just threw up in his mouth a little bit

1 up, 0 down

Ahhh, good ol' Jack Thompson, haven't heard from him for a while.

0 up, 0 down

F**K YEAH!!! *runs outside listening to far east movement track likeaG6 dancing horribly while on lookers stared in discust"

3 up, 0 down

You already know we pop bottles up in the club, FaTaL rIcAn.

As far as the the topic goes it's definitely something we all needed to hear about. We're living a very immature country where the media acts like children when there's a sex scandal @_@.

2 up, 1 down

The sad thing is the media is only reporting that kids can still buy violent video games. Gotta love the way they twist it into whatever they want.

1 up, 0 down

not surprising really, the likelihood of this passing was about as high as naughty dog buying back the rights to crash and bringing us a sequel!

---

Last edited by ___________ on 6/28/2011 3:38:30 AM

1 up, 0 down

It was doomed from the start since the California legislature created a situation where the video games were treated in a different manner to other forms of electronic entertainment. Not only that but they had to know that the court has had difficulty with the issue of violence in media before. They appear to be unable to decide that god awful violence is not OK for kids./ This is because it's apparently difficult to come up with a wording that adequately describes the difference between what a 17 year old may view and what an 18 year old may view. personally, I think that the bleeding obvious point is that whatever a 17 or 18 year old may view a 5 frickin' year old should be viewing it, so there is a way to create a standard. Even if all you do is use the rating thresholds for the game content itself and use those as a broad guide that says that a minor younger cannot buy an M rated game unless accompanied by an adult - the same language used for R-Rated movies. But the supreme court decision makes that near impossible now. The worst thing is that the legislators in California had to know that this would probably happen, so I am wondering whether this is in fact what they wanted.

The problem for the entire industry now is that the next avenue of attack on the video game is actually far, far more dangerous than this. We're all celebrating this victory for free-speech - now that games like Manhunt 2 are deemed acceptable for 5 year olds (that is the literal effect of the decision). Well I'm, not exactly celebrating, free-speech may have triumphed, but common sense and morality has not. Either way, my personal view isn't the point. The point is that the people attacking video games will not give up on this.

If you look at the really nasty violent games - such as Manhunt 2, it's patently obvious that the content in the game is unsuitable for children. personally I think it's unsuitable for anyone, but definitely kids. OK then, let's look at the obscenity laws...

The 1957 court decision left this 'definition ' of obscenity - a published work is obscene if it a) appeals predominantly to prurient interests; b) is patently offensive by contemporary community standards; and, c) is utterly without redeeming social value. Not an easy standard to enforce. A 1977 case added the following rider to all of this - a work could be obscene if the acts depicted within it "lacked serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value."

Now, here's the thing. I don't honestly think that anyone here (well maybe one or two would, just for the heck of it) would disagree that extreme violence can be seen as obscene by an ordinary viewer. The legal definition of obscene, such as it is, includes the word prurient, which essentially limits the current definition of obscene to sexual material. However, I would be extremely unsurprised if the folks trying to ban or limit video game violence did not attempt to further the definition of obscenity to include acts of extreme violence. I wouldn't in all honesty be surprised if the court extended the definition of obscene to include violence whether sexual or not, after all the content in games like manhunt 2 pretty much exemplifies the definition of obscenity - without the prurient interest. I mean, can anyone truly argue that a game like ManHunt 2 (and there are other such games, and specific elements within many other less harshly rated games) does not meet the following two elements of the definition of obscenity; b) is patently offensive by contemporary community standards; and, c) is utterly without redeeming social value, or lacks any serious artistic, literary, political, or scientific value.

I don't think that the intention of the California legislature was to open up this can of worms, but by essentially forcing the court to declare video games protected, they have also forced the people trying to ban games to look at the next most obvious thing - obscenity. And to be honest, Obscenity laws are a far more dangerous and blunt weapon. Simply carding people buying M rated games is far, more preferable to having the obscenity standards include violence. But, I betcha that's where this is ultimately headed. It's an easy argument to make for most people - I mean, if you show 100 people you pluck at random from the street game play from an extremely violent game, I could guarantee you that if you ask those people whether they felt that the images were obscene, you'd get a huge majority of people saying that they were obscene. That would appear to be a slam dunk on the community standards argument.

I don't want to see that happen, despite my own personal objections to the content of some games, I absolutely don't want the obscenity laws involved in gaming because they can carry criminal penalties. But, the problem is that by forcing the court to rule regarding the classification of video games in general as protected forms of expression, this leaves one of the few avenues of attack in the obscenity laws. Those laws are far more dangerous they can actually limit what specific content qualifies as free speech. So although games in general are protected, specific things in games may not be.

1 up, 0 down

i can see why there trying to sit it in its own category, using the argument games have a greater impact because there interactive, require you to think and act.
i dunno if that really increases the impact of it, but thats definitely whats happening here.
another thing is perspective.
L4D2 got banned because its a first person game, dead rising 2 got passed because its 3rd person.
the thinking is that first person has a higher impact then third person.
which is just ridiculous!
games having a higher impact because there interactive i can understand and handle, but FP V TP is just clutching at straws!

ratings should be simple, whether games should be rated higher then movies is another matter to be decided, but there should be 3 ratings for games.
G meaning anyone can play it.
PG meaning 13 and above, or under adult supervision.
R meaning adults only, make it illegal to play, let alone sell to a person under the age of 18.
games like hitman are a extreme category, but i dont see any reason why a adult should not be allowed to play such things.
surely adults are wise and mature enough to understand its a game, and not go out acting the scenes seen in it.
though, to be honest nothing would surprise me........
cant remember what game it was, but someone got arrested in NZ a few months ago for reenacting the scenes he saw in a game.
so you could make the argument in extreme cases no one is suitable to play those games, but its not fair and right to categorize and punish 99% of the population for the 1% of idiots out there!

1 up, 0 down

Exactly! The worrying thing for me is that while we are all celebrating this 'victory' the fact is that with a law that required purchasers to be carded to buy M rated games, the issue of game violence was over and done with. Now it rumbles on and there is the chance that the campaigners will find another way to restrict the games by having them classified as obscene and therefore making actual censorship of games possible. With the rating system and carding, there's nothing preventing games from containing specific content, it's simply a case of ensure that minors can't buy them. I don't know whether those campaigners will succeed in that, but I'm certain that they will try.

Cases like the one you mention in NZ will always spur on the campaigners against games.

---

Last edited by Highlander on 6/29/2011 10:08:53 AM

0 up, 0 down

Gamers 1 - California 0

0 up, 0 down

mindmurderer69 I have a Bachelors degree in Criminal Justice and work in law enforcement and I must say those stats you posted are new to me..... Care to post your source?

Highlander I think you are getting a raw deal here and are actually one of the few who see the big picture. I totally agree with your idea of treating "M" rated games like "R" rated movies and sales of such games should be restricted to adults. If parents wish to buy these games for their kids that's their decision. I saw Predator and Terminator before I was 10 and I turned out fine but I also had loving/caring parents. I fail to see how video games should be held to any more or less of a standard than books,movies,music,etc and believe that is where the CA law failed.

0 up, 0 down

As one who's career is working with youth, I couldn't agree more about M rated games and R rated movies. There are some youth who are mature enough to make their own decisions and be unaffected by these movies, but a surprising number of youth are definitely not. -Especially- in the age 8-14 range.

I know leaving that decision to parents can be somewhat flawed as well, since some parents are pretty shit parents. But it is likely the most appropriate option. I work with many youth who, given the chance, would make a wrong choice just for the sake of making a wrong choice.

0 up, 0 down

Thanks. The odd thing to me is that making it necessary to card a purchaser of an R-rated movie or M-rated game actually puts more control back into the hands of the parent. It reduces the ease with which kids can obtain this kind of entertainment on their own. That forces the purchase and decision back into the hands of the people with whom it belongs, the parents.

0 up, 0 down

A lot of the time, parents don't really grasp the concept of ratings to begin with. To uneducated parents, they'd be forced to ask the question, "Why do you need me to buy it for you? What is stopping you from getting it?"

Thus, more control for parents, as you guys said!

0 up, 0 down

you know, there is a higher level rating on movies, where you absolutely have to be an adult to by, and that's x. I would have no problem with extreme games like manhunt 2 being in a higher and more strict catagory than r or m. I mean lets face it, in reality, most places don't actually card, pretty much anyone can get r rated movies. Even at wal-mart I never got carded. and don't forget the online purchases, you dont get carded at all. especially with the parents credit card for id. I do agree 200% about this being the parents responsibility and not the goverments. Parents need to take responsibility for their children, and actually pay attention to what they are into. Most of those kids you hear about going off and shooting people, almost all of them don't have "parents" who are being parents. they are left to their own devices all the time because the parents are too busy or not around. yes yes I know there are exceptions to everything, but the majority of kids who grow up in traditional healthy homes, tend to be healthy productive people in our society. and a large majority of kids who grow up without parental supervision tend to be less productive in society

0 up, 0 down

There is no X rating.

There is a rating "higher" than R. It is called NC-17.

0 up, 0 down

ok, so I'm a bit behind the times, but here:

NC-17: "No One 17 And Under Admitted": Originally called X, this rating is applied to films the board believes most parents will consider inappropriate for children. It indicates only that adult content is more intense than in an R movie; it does not imply any sort of obscenity. As with films rated R, the minimum age to see a NC-17 movie is 18 in some states.

0 up, 0 down

welcome to our website:
w w w . L t t s y - t r a d e . c o m

50%off ca,ed hardy t-shirt$15 jeans,coach handbag$33,air max90,dunk,polo t-shirt$13,,lacoste t-shirt $13 air jordan for sale,l nba jersy for sale sale,$35,nfl nba jersy for sale
and so on..
if you like to order anything you like.
More details,
please just browse our website Quality is our Dignity;
Service is our Lift.
enjoy yourself.
thank you!!
w w w . L t t s y - t r a d e . c o m

0 up, 0 down

Parents nowadays have messed up value, they find it perfectly fine for kid to seem violence but OMG seeing a naked women body that isnt doing anything degrading is a big NO NO. Ive seen it first hand many times, a guy barges in a club start shooting everyone in site and then you see a pair of boobs and the parents freak out because their kid can see that...
I fear for what the current generation will grow up to be with weird value nowadays...

0 up, 0 down