Sign on Options
Theme:
To Dark

Supreme Court to hear California game law case

Nation's highest body to review Ninth US Circuit Court of Appeals' dismissal of law that would prohibit sale of games to minors.

Last February, the US Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals upheld a lower court's decision that California's law preventing the sale of violent video games to minors was unconstitutional. According to the appeals-court ruling, bill AB1179, signed into California law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005, violated the First Amendment's guarantee of freedom of speech.

California's game bill is headed to the US Supreme Court.

California's game bill is headed to the US Supreme Court.

In May, the California government appealed the court's decision on the law, which was penned by California State Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco), who was a child psychologist before entering public service. Today, the US Supreme Court--the country's highest legal body--agreed to hear the case, officially titled Arnold Schwarzenegger, Governor of California, v. Entertainment Merchants Association. The latter is a lobby for the US home entertainment industry and was formed by the merger of the Interactive Entertainment Merchants Association (IEMA) and the Video Software Dealers Association (VSDA) in 2006.

Though it is unclear exactly when the case will be heard, both sides of the debate wasted no time in sounding off on the court's decision. "I am very pleased that the Supreme Court has accepted our case to help protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games," said Yee in a statement. "The Supreme Court has never heard a case dealing with violent video games. I am hopeful that the high court will determine our law to be Constitutional, but regardless, states are now certain to receive direction on how to proceed with this important issue."

Equally vocal was Michael Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, the lobby that represents most major game publishers. "Courts throughout the country have ruled consistently that content-based regulation of computer and video games is unconstitutional," he declared in a statement. "Research shows that the public agrees, video games should be provided the same protections as books, movies, and music."

Both Yee and Gallagher made reference to the court's ruling in the case of the US v. Stevens last week. In an 8 to 1 decision, the court threw out the three-year prison sentence of Robert Stevens, who had been convicted under a law banning videos of animal cruelty. (In this case, the offending material was dog-fighting videos.) The law had been enacted as a response to so-called "crush videos," in which small animals are stomped to death in sadomasochistic sexual rituals.

"As the Court recognized last week in the US v. Stevens case, the First Amendment protects all speech other than just a few 'historic and traditional categories' that are 'well defined and narrowly limited,'" said Gallagher. "We are hopeful that the Court will reject California's invitation to break from these settled principles by treating depictions of violence, especially those in creative works, as unprotected by the First Amendment."

Yee took a more legalistic tack when weighing in on the case. "Last week, the high court struck down a law, in United States v. Stevens, that would have banned the sale of media that depicts animal cruelty, however, the Court said that such a law may be constitutional if it were more narrowly tailored. California's violent video game [law] is narrowly tailored and focuses only on the sale of such ultraviolent video games to children, whereas the Stevens case banned the sale of animal cruelty films to all individuals. In addition, California's law is dealing with an interactive media versus a passive media in the animal cruelty case."

374 Comments

  • djyogi

    Posted May 3, 2010 10:41 pm GMT

    I remember sneaking into the movie theater to see the first Predator with Arnie!!! Now he wants to do this to the new generation, probably so his movies are the only violence you see. cheap move movie man!

  • MacenKrace

    Posted May 1, 2010 8:54 am GMT

    What about the 16+ games?

  • awyoung

    Posted Apr 30, 2010 1:43 am GMT

    Whatever happens, I hope there is no double standards that come into play. I so often read stories about games being "banned" or forced into modification because some body of people thought it to be harmful, yet movies depicting the same exact things with REAL people/actors involved get a 14 or 18+ sticker on the back.

  • KillerWabbit23

    Posted Apr 29, 2010 6:04 pm GMT

    Something big is about to go down in the Supreme Court. Lawyers will be pissed. Gamers will watch in terror. The video game market as we know it might be changed forever...
    The Future of Mature Games- coming This Fall to a Theater Near You...

  • deviant74

    Posted Apr 29, 2010 12:37 pm GMT

    If it wasn't for me and a lot of other 15 to 16 year old's back in the day finding ways into R rated films then no one would know this Schwarzenegger.

  • Glade_Gnarr

    Posted Apr 28, 2010 10:57 pm GMT

    They should ban r rated movies also, otherwise I call bs.

  • cheater2000

    Posted Apr 28, 2010 9:47 pm GMT

    I hope the government's 18 and up rating that they come up with isn't banned like the AO rating.

  • darkcomedian

    Posted Apr 28, 2010 5:49 pm GMT

    Not a huge deal for me so meh whatever, they can put this law into place and nothing will change in my life. I personally would like to see the ESRB be reformed on their obvious bias toward violence over sexuality though, that would be cool.

  • jojoforpres

    Posted Apr 28, 2010 4:01 pm GMT

    Mikethechimp-troll be trollin'.

  • IceJester45

    Posted Apr 28, 2010 6:37 am GMT

    @Hollow-Byakuya,

    I imagine your comment comes from someone who actually knows little to nothing about the U.S. legal system generally and First Amendment jurisprudence in particular. But, who actually cares?

  • Hollow-Byakuya posted Apr 27, 2010 11:59 pm GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    Hollow-Byakuya

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 11:59 pm GMT (hide)

    America's legal system is simply abysmal, who actually cares?

  • IndianaPwns39

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 8:43 pm GMT

    @ Mikethechimp

    So personal experience not regarding my own life doesn't count? So if I tell you the countless family members, friends, and even various people I don't get along with that balance gaming with other activities healthy means nothing to you? You're basically saying "Your area doesn't count".
    You're right, there are times that people are addicted to video games and it shows a decrease in motivation and work. In the same manner that people can be addicted to shopping, television, building model vehicles, board games, photography, cleaning, and everything else in the world. You hit a nerve because you insulted an entire culture of people. Every single culture of anything has it's "bad apples" but that doesn't mean we're all like that. You also hit a nerve by citing a site with zero sources or studies for their reasoning. Drinking Snapple will give you brain cancer. Just because I said it doesn't make it true.

  • Spiffy995

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 8:01 pm GMT

    Wow was it really necessary to mod me just cuz I called someone a moron troller?? Real nice gamespot, even more so to the one who reported me. Don't really understand why I got modded and no one else has....

  • IceJester45

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 7:42 pm GMT

    I tell myself that games are a low form of art when some kid beats me at Gears of War. Unfortunately, I'd rather be good at my job than good at Gears of War.

  • Mikethechimp posted Apr 27, 2010 7:34 pm GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    Mikethechimp

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 7:34 pm GMT (hide)

    "...they can really help skills such as spatial reasoning and problem solving"

    Yes, in the context of the game. In real life, however, they're practically useless. Read the recent study published in the Nature magazine.

    EDIT: The fact this comment got voted down really shows how gamers ignore the factuallity of things. You can't change your IQ. You can only get better at mental tasks through doing tedious practice; your IQ judges the length of practice required.

  • ghandi16

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 5:44 pm GMT

    This is just about parents looking for a scapegoat because their kid is a deadbeat loser

    Hell, I've played stupid amounts of games throughout my life (including WoW, now clean) and I'm doing alright, I'm in medschool and play guitar in a band, why? Because I got out of my chair and did other things

    There is absolutely NOTHING wrong with playing video games, in fact I personally believe they can really help skills such as spatial reasoning and problem solving

    Parents can't take the blame, at the end of the day its up to you alone to engage in other things and to make the most of the short life you have

    /rant

  • MSilence

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 4:17 pm GMT

    @Mikethechimp
    While I'll agree that no one who actually suffers from your claims will out themselves, your statement alone requires you to offer more proof to make your point valid. All you'll get here is proof of the opposite. As for your link, it's by FAR not a good resource to prove your point.

    "The concern is when video game playing becomes an addictive or isolating activity." - So the problem is when it becomes an addiction, not playing games in and of itself. This can be said of all activities. Everything in moderation.

    Not to mention, a large variety of video games REQUIRE reading in order to truly understand and play it, as well as higher levels of analytical thinking. For every Doom you have a Xenogears (The second disc might as well have been a book).



    General Reply:


    As far as the law is concerned in my opinion, this should be left in the hands of the ESRB, or a similar body. It's in the best interest of the ESRB to do their jobs correctly. The Grand Theft Auto controversy is one of the better examples, due to the Hot Coffee scandal, the game received an AO rating, which is a rating many stores simply would not carry, like pornography. If a game recreated violence to the level where I would consider it truly being a major contribution to a perfectly normal kid losing it; it should receive an AO rating and the backlash would be just as strong. Granted, my thoughts of what should receive an AO rating may not be what people want to use, but that's why we have the ESRB.

  • Mikethechimp

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 3:44 pm GMT

    @ IndianaPwns39

    Once again, some one brings himself as an example. I ignored the answers to my original comment because they were all personal examples, just like yours.

    I wonder, where are all the people reading my comments who HAVE seen a decrease in their health and motivation due to gaming? There's probably plenty, but they will never make themselves examples because it goes against their agenda.

    @ IndianaPwns39

    You're reading this on a gaming site, where the vast majority of users are not casual gamers. That's why everyone's so upset at me. I've hit a nerve, boo-hoo.

  • DrEvilKoala

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 3:39 pm GMT

    @joke_man
    I didn't say that both things were connected, I only said that almost everyone I know who is into gaming occasionally read books. It was mostly meant to be a reaction to Mikethechimp, who seems hellbent on irritating everyone here.

    @waterdragon222
    Isn't that true for everything for sale? You think publishers sell books so they can "enrich" you (since we're all assuming that literature is a "higher" form)? I don't think that's true. Writers probably do. Same goes for most game developers (not publishers) I think. They trie to make games that are fun. If they are fun, people will buy it. If people buy it, they can usually make more of the stuff they love. It's an overtly simple representation ofcourse, but in some ways it's as simple as that.

  • kid23455

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 2:55 pm GMT

    I think this post would be a good way to end this article

  • IndianaPwns39

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 2:48 pm GMT

    @ Mikethechimp

    People disagreeing with your original post automatically proves you right? You might want to rethink that logic.
    Also, while rethinking that logic do me a favor and tell me the point of posting that link.
    It had no discerning database or study to back what it claimed. It was just written words by someone who has an agenda. I can go online and find several things that disprove it, does that mean they're correct? No. Just because someone wrote it and posted it online doesn't make it correct and doesn't mean a practical, well done study was conducted. The fact of the matter is that if you don't like gaming, that's your business. You don't have to try and justify your opinion as fact because it quite simply isn't true. I play games and I'm quite good at them. I also go to college with admirable grades and do my work. I also have a job (albeit a part time one). On top of that, I read books, watch movies, and I have a social life with my friends. Most of which are also gamers and are also doing the same things I am.
    The vast majority of people that play games that I personally know, are nothing like how you've described. You know how many times I've played Modern Warfare 2 or Bad Company 2 online and various friends and players said "I gotta go guys, I need to finish some homework"? An uncountable amount of times.

  • kid23455

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 2:48 pm GMT

    Okay, everybody, you guys really need to think over what you are saying about violent video games and video games ruining you life
    video games addiction and obsession DOES in fact, ruin you life. If you think about gaming nonstop, you will have problems. However, many gamers are CASUAL gamers, which means they game at their leisure.
    Here are the positives of video games:
    stress remover, sense of accomplishment, being social, and having fun
    here are the negatives:
    addiction leads to: laziness
    See? Mike the chimp and all other anti video game people are just overconcerned parents, thinking, video games are so bad, kids should spend more time in church or doing schoolwork
    You are confused that nobody plays d&d anymore
    and to all parents who are in this post, go away!!! If your kids are addicted to video games, and you cant get to them, thats your fault. Go do something with them, youll see, they will withdraw
    Also, im not saying that bad parenting always means addiction, but it often does. If you dont believe me, apply that to drugs
    Do kids with bad parents or parent figures often turn to drugs or crime?
    enough said

  • DarknautXXX

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 2:40 pm GMT

    I don't think there is anything wrong with this law (I always assumed it existed), but I don't like the undertones of it. Mass media and non- gamers in general always come down hard on video games unless if they look cute and cuddly. What people need to understand is that most gamers play games because of thier gameplay, not necissarily because they have cool graphics and mature overtones. For example, sandbox games, like Gran Theft Auto, typically are very violent and gory, but the main intrigue in GTA is the ability to do whatever you want in a very open environment. It also comes down to influence. If a kid is only playing violent games, has minimal or no contact with the outside world, and has neglectful and uncaring parents, then chances are they're going to go on a mindless rampage shooting up the town. Wheras a kid who plays violent games, but also gets out into the world and has parents that would be angry if thier kid was high, will probably be a decent person. Parents are a very big influence.

  • tehepicpwnzor

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 2:11 pm GMT

    Video games do not cause crime. They give already criminal minds ideas on how to commit crimes. Video games are responsible for no more deaths than violent books. Violent movies. Violent TV shows. Violent art. Don't ban video games, you stupid politicians.

  • waterdragon222

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 2:10 pm GMT

    Mike the chimp is right- gaming in general is deleterious to anyone's health over time. The whole point of this (video games) is that people buy, not have fun. Most large companies just want money like Microsoft and Mac. The developers are the ones who sometimes like what they do. By the way, it's more bad than good, but gaming has benefits

  • Mikethechimp posted Apr 27, 2010 2:03 pm GMT (does not meet display criteria. sign in to show)

    Mikethechimp

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 2:03 pm GMT (hide)

    Just as expected, people responded to my comment providing themselves as an example.

    Read this: http://www.media-awareness.ca/english/parents/video_games/issues_teens_videogames.cfm

    Gamers USUALLY tend to neglect schoolwork, their responsibilities, and personal health in favor of gaming. I'm not saying some people don't fight for those things outside of their gaming time, but sitting around and playing an Xbox game is detrimental by nature. The only real benefit you get from it is short-term euphoria, in particular if all you do is play online multiplayer.

    Gaming is one of the lowest forms of entertainment that there is, comparable to doing drugs and watching porn.

  • Mrglorp

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 1:56 pm GMT

    i have to agree with the parents being responsible for what there kids see and teaching them whats wrong and whats going on in video games not being real ect. But there are some really sick games out there. (movies too but thats not my point) I know from personal experience that a lot of parents are still stuck in the 80's mentality oh its just a game its harmless. Some games that ive seen could mess a young kid up with this kind of attitude. The campaign on cod MW2 is a good example of this. I actually was disturbed by some of the stuff i saw in it. So i can understand why they tried passing a law like this but like everyone knows, there's no way to enforce this. The rating on games is kind of a grey area, theirs enough info to give you an idea of whats in it but you won't know for sure until you play it. Making the law almost pointless. But it still comes down to the parents.

  • SuperYeti22

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 1:52 pm GMT

    I just love how bad parents blame violent video games on their kids going and shooting people, so they can convince themselves that they're not bad parents. And even if the bill is passed, kids will still get their hands on violent video games, any dumb@$$ can ask their parents to buy the game for them. Go ahead and pass the bill, I dare you to.

  • Xeogua

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 1:43 pm GMT

    This is so stupid, if some kid goes out and shoots somebody because it was in a video game, don't you think they already had some kind of mental problem that just wasn't noticed, or their parents wouldn't acknowledge it because they think their child is "perfect".

  • SuperYeti22

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 1:29 pm GMT

    Here's the REAL reason why little kids shouldn't play m-rated games: So they don't scream in my ears when I play Killzone 2

  • Oozyrat

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 1:17 pm GMT

    I played GoldenEye 64 (fav game to this day and will always be) since I was around 4 (started gaming at age 2). I used to use the slow-mo cheat and riddle enemies with bullets as they slowly fell to their knees and then face planted into the ground. I used to think it was the funniest thing! But guess what, even though I was only around 4, I still knew it was wrong. To this day, I rarely ever get into trouble and have never gotten into a real fight. Just because a violent game is being played by a minor, doesn't mean that they are going to mimic the actions that are in the game. As long as the parent is responsible and teaches their child the right things, they will do the right things. In a way, parents are responsible for all of their offspring's (or offsprings') actions.

    Not to mention, if it becomes a law, the parent will just go into the store and buy the game for the child.

  • Frimmel

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 1:13 pm GMT

    So who gets to define 'ultraviolent?' Who gets to decide that this is too violent and that this level of violence is okay to be sold to kids? How will this law be enforced? Will the good intentions of protecting kids become twisted into censorship for all?

  • dem5000

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 12:02 pm GMT

    Anyone here remember the PMRC? I don't even know if it still exists, but back in the 90's, with the help of Tipper Gore I believe, it became illegal for people under 18 to purchase any music that was deemed inappropriate for minors by the PMRC guidelines. At the time, I was into metal, which was pretty much all deemed unfit. How many of those heavy metal cassettes do you think were stopped from getting to my hands because of the PMRC warning? It's impossible to enforce this. Waste of time, and dangerously close to censorship, which I am always against.

  • Gadrath

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 11:23 am GMT

    Here in Sweden, if you want to buy a M-rated game you must either be as old as the rating says or have a parent whit you. However this is not a law and the cops are to lazy to care anyway. The parents are responsible for whatever violent or sexual content the child see or play.

    But one thing I can't understand is why they crack down on sex and nudity. It's legal to have sex under the age of 18, but you're not allowed to see it.

  • Rottenwood

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 10:41 am GMT

    @joke_man

    I don't have enough data to say how small businesses would be affected here. My guess is that a large, large majority of video game retail is done through specialty and big-box stores and would be easily monitored. I don't know how e-stores like Amazon do age verification; I'm guessing they assume that anyone old enough to have a credit card is old enough to handle Saints Row. E-Bay will undoubtedly remain a jungle that no law can really penetrate.

    As you said, it's swallow-our-pride time. Is it frustrating (and a bit embarrassing) to have your hobby picked over by lawmakers with little-to-no gaming experience? Sure. Every time I try to extol the virtues of adult gaming, there's a news story about Rockstar warping the minds of children (who, in these pieces, are the only people who apparently enjoy video games) and destroying America. Whatever. Do what you need to do, guys. Card me, give Doug The Cashier a fat fine, whatever it takes to bring you that illusion of safety. In the meantime, teenage boys will do what they have always done so well: get their hands on the goods anyhow.

  • Get_Shorty

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 10:40 am GMT

    Sure just as long as they make it illegal for minors to purchase rated R movie tix and books with "bad words" in them. Oh and the government should tell us when to use the washroom and when to eat.

  • Takeno456

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 10:36 am GMT

    I don't think it is necessarily wise to allow young children to buy mature content. However it is not the governments job to enforce this. This is the job of parents. Yeah its true in this day that a lot of parents are doing a lousy job of managing their children but that still doesn't mean that the government needs to step in and regulate the problem. Games are protected just as any form of speech is. Leave it to “progressive” California to make a Supreme Court case about this.

  • Viktormon

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 10:32 am GMT

    I don't think young children should play violent games, or see violent movies, unless they have a parent accompanying them and talking to the child about what they see and play. That's how I was raised... Kinda.

  • MuffintopX

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 10:13 am GMT

    Wow I am actually torn on this one. I don't think we should allow minors to buy graphic content like God of War with all the boobies etc. Rules need to be in place to let the parent make the decision, not the child. However, is it constitutional? And on which matters should children have equal rights related freedom of speech? Yikes.

  • joke_man

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 9:35 am GMT

    @Rottenwood

    While categorizing books as passive is something I cannot agree with, I won't nitpick too much as I appreciate your pragmatism and will label your err as a Freudian slip. If the law enacted simply resulted in flashing your ID for an M-rated game, I feel the only thing the law really adds is a $1,000 fine, as many large retailers already require ID. If concessions must be made, however, I have no problem with retailers taking the hit. My only other concern stems from small businesses and the selling of video games online. As we all know, most large retailers already have company policies that enforce ESRB ratings; however, a typical small retailer or business is less likely to have said policies in effect. At the end of the day, I still feel the law penalizes the small guy more so than the big guy. Too many people, as it is, would rather visit their local Gamestop. This of course has its obvious problems, as I'm sure you are aware. There is also the issue of online used and new games, which becomes tricky with Amazon, Ebay, etc. Honestly, I feel there are 1001 reasons the ruling should be upheld, but perhaps it's time for mature gamers to force out the video game stigmas and swallow our pride, if "proper" institution of the law is established. Either way, I'm glad we can participate in some much needed, healthy debate. Perhaps lawmakers could learn something from the Doom generation.

  • richioso

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 9:27 am GMT

    @Gelugon_baat

    Yeah I noticed that as well but I was calling him a numbskull for saying that gamers don't read books.

  • jasonmperry70

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 9:10 am GMT

    I work for an electronics chain in the software department. I can't tell you how many times I've had to explain the ESRB ratings system to parents who have no idea what sort of content is in the games they are buying for their children. Unfortunately these days, video game consoles are the new electronic babysitters. Just plop your children down in front of the TV, hand them a controller, and walk away. Kinda sad. With our kids, we actually sit down with them and watch what they play. That way if they have any questions about something they see, we're there to answer them.

  • Rottenwood

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 9:09 am GMT

    @joke_man

    Comparing violent games to movies/books/etc. is tricky, because one is interactive and the others are passive. I'm not entirely convinced that these mediums should all receive identical legislation. I'd be lying, however, if I said I had the necessary psychological data to support this either way.

    I think that your slippery-slope arguments have some healthy paranoia, but I expect that when push comes to shove, it will simply come down to getting carded for M-rated games, which we can all live with. I was at the angsty teenager age when the Parental Advisory brouhaha erupted in the music industry, and the only remnants are stickers nobody pays attention to. Eminem is still chainsawing people's privates in lyrical form with little fuss. Life goes on.

    Video games are going to take their hits for a while because it's a new medium and 98% of the people legislating them have no farking clue what they're talking about. Once the industry gets more money and influence in Washington and we start seeing more lawmakers of our generation who played Doom with no ill effects, the tide will slowly turn.

  • stakex007

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 9:07 am GMT

    @Rottenwood - Very nobel speach... however your forgetting one small problem: These laws violate the US constitution. So why should gamers and the industry "meet the other side half way" when they are clearly in the wrong? Did we offer to pay the British half the taxes they tried to take from us all thoes years ago? I don't think so. Im so glad your not in charge of anything in this world.

    The ironic part at the end of all this, is just how much money California is blowing on a case that is 100% un-constitutional, when they are so far in the hole its not even funny. Throwing away tax payer money and digging your debt hole deeper is a sure fire way to get re-elected..... /sarcasim

  • joke_man

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 8:53 am GMT

    @Rottenwood

    I think you are confusing your own soapbox for the soapbox of everyone else. Or maybe the fact that you each person has their own electronic-like soapbox annoys you. One of the issues is whether or not the government would continue to use ESRB ratings if this law was enacted. This is an interesting topic because 1) the government would be regulating the sale of video games using a 3rd party ratings systems and using their own undefined, ambiguous terms such as "ultraviolent" to decide who can buy what, ect. 2) Some type of commission would probably be created to enforce this law and the fines associated with it. No other such board exists for entertainment, and it would be silly to group it with the sale and fine of other "sin" goods. Not only does this cost money, but I would venture to guess this very group would extend their reach to further defining the ratings of video games, etc. At that point, how do you group T-rated games, etc. from getting into the "wrong hands".
    The whole idea of regulating video games in this manner, while we allow similar forms of electronic entertainment to monitor and regulate themselves, stinks. While I'm obviously supposing, I impress the fact that nothing like this has really ever been done before--especially at this level. Honestly, I don't imagine the few issues I mentioned are on too slippery of a slope.

  • WolfeStedro

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 8:40 am GMT

    I don't have a problem with the law being set. I only have a problem with video games being treated differently than other forms of entertainment.

    Minors ( or those under the age of 18 ) are already not bound to the same system of laws as adults. Can minors vote? No. Can minors buy alcohol? No. Mature content isn't much of a stretch.

    The problem is that video games are seen as more destructive to children than anything else. Whether that is actually true, it is up to the child's guardian to know and decide what forms of entertainment influence the child. As much as I dislike ignorant parents, it is still their right.

  • joke_man

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 8:35 am GMT

    @akiwak

    Outside of the "productive member of society" and American Deamesque junk, I think you make a very valid point. You as a parent are responsible for the socialization your child rgoes through. It's not appropriate to displace this responsibility on another entity--especially one ran by backwords partisan politicians. He's your child and you are responsible. In fact, you should pride yourself in him and cherish his accomplishments. Outside of his time enjoying video games with dad, however, I hope you take the time to read him a book as well.

  • robram9

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 8:32 am GMT

    @sieg6529:

    I agree with you, if parents did their job there would be no need for laws like this, a lot of parents will buy any game their children want just to shut them up and keep them busy without even looking at the ratings, is really the parents responsability and not the goverment's to watch what their children play.

  • Diablo-B

    Posted Apr 27, 2010 8:31 am GMT

    @invadingduck - Stores take it upon themselves to restrict minors from buying M rated games. There is no law that requires it.

    From a constitutional stand point most cases like this get overruled. Once they establish that adults have the right to view violent games it becomes easy to establish that minors are entitled to the same first amendment rights. Thats usually how they rule. The only exception is sexual content. In the US there is a very strong social/cultural apprehension against any form of open sexuality. Its one of the reasons why a guy like Jason Kidd can beat his wife and no one talks about it yet Tiger Woods sleeps around and they are ready to stone him.

Subscribe to GameSpot's YouTube Channel

Hot Stories

Newsmakers

Featured Stories

Submit News

Got tips? Send them in!