US Supreme Court protects games

[Mr. Happy]

Awhile back california tried to ban* the sale of 'violent' games to minor (under 18). The supreme court just ruled that this law is unconstitutional as it violates the first amendment right to free speech. The decision was 7-2

http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/27/scotus.video.games/

Specifically they said the law was too broad and that there was a tradition of exposing children to violence (like in fairy tales) and that this law infringed on a parents right to make that choice. Unfortunately that means that a more narrow and speciic law could be written that would not be covered by this precedent.

Of course most retailor still enforce the ESRB ratings on the grounds that they can refuse service to anyone on any non-discriminatory grounds, which means no M rated games for minors at major retailors.

Anyway, just thought you guys would want to know.

*california likes to try and ban everything

[Vilham]

"and that this law infringed on a parents right to make that choice" dunno how it did that. It stopped the kid from buying the game not the parent. I really don't know what the fuss has all been about, we have this law in the UK and the UK games industry is still here making some violent big hitters.

[Bunglo]

This law, if I'm correct, was meant to stop retailers from selling violent video games to minors. I think that's as specific as it got, so theoretically, if the state deemed Super Smash bros to be violent, you'd need to be a legal adult in order to buy the game. So it's not about stopping development of violent games, it's about having governmental control of defining violent and banning all sales of said game to minors.

[Campaignjunkie]

I think the law was most dubious with determining whether the game violence was "of artistic merit" -- who decides that? Can't you argue that for anything?

The California senator who championed the law (Leland Yee) is an okay guy, and I think he had good intentions based on what he was seeing. Sadly, that's all he was seeing.

[Vilham]

dont you have a ratings system? surely 18 = violent.

[Bunglo]

Yes, it's the ESRB and if a game is rated 'M' (for mature), you have to be 17 or older to buy it. If you're not, you need your parent there to buy it. It works just fine, there's no need for state regulation and control on what game is or isn't violent and then banning minors from buying the game.

EDIT: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

[twiz]

Yeah, it was a pretty silly case to begin with.. in retail stores its already in effect with esrb ratings, and online its already easily defeated with the magical anonymity of the internet.. so this would have directly changed nothing, but would have opened a door for further legislation that could have actual negative effects. But that's cali for ya.

[Vilham]

Yes, it's the ESRB and if a game is rated 'M' (for mature), you have to be 17 or older to buy it. If you're not, you need your parent there to buy it. It works just fine, there's no need for state regulation and control on what game is or isn't violent and then banning minors from buying the game.

EDIT: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

Sound to me like they just needed to use the ESRB's rating to decide if a game was violent, thats how its done in the UK. Twiz is right about that internet comment though.

[e-freak]

startpage on the steam store:

[twiz]

:science:

[KungFuSquirrel]

Yes, it's the ESRB and if a game is rated 'M' (for mature), you have to be 17 or older to buy it. If you're not, you need your parent there to buy it. It works just fine, there's no need for state regulation and control on what game is or isn't violent and then banning minors from buying the game.

EDIT: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

Sound to me like they just needed to use the ESRB's rating to decide if a game was violent, thats how its done in the UK. Twiz is right about that internet comment though.

The original law was created based on the belief that the ESRB was an inadequate ratings system (despite being rated the strongest of all the voluntary ratings systems here in the US).

This issue was never really about the content or kids being able to acquire it - the ruling doesn't mean that kids should be lining up to buy DNF (nor will they, because the already-established ESRB partnership with retailers already won't allow them to) - it's about the role of government in entertainment. We take our First Amendment right to freedom of expression very seriously over here, and all other forms of entertainment have been found to fall under those protections.

Games, like the film, TV, and music industries, provide voluntary ratings systems to help consumers make an educated decision about whether a movie, tv show, album, or game is right for them or their children. This California law targeted only games, which the justices of the Supreme Court (rightly) ruled is a violation of 1st Amendment protections when compared to other forms of media. After all, why should a local, state, or federal government get to say whether or not Halo can be sold on store shelves while Eli Roth makes Hostel movies and no one bats an eye?

An opposite ruling in this case would have relegated games to government oversight like alcohol, tobacco, and pornography instead of allowing them to exist in parallel to their peers of film, TV, music, books, etc, and would have set disastrous precedent for the entertainment industry as a whole. The Supreme Court made the right call, and it's a relief to see both sides of the political spectrum on the court generally agree (interestingly, the two dissenters were the two more extreme justices on either side, haha)

[AlexM]

Can children buy R rated movies in California?

I really just wish that games wouldn't be treated differently.

[Jake Gilla]

Yes, it's the ESRB and if a game is rated 'M' (for mature), you have to be 17 or older to buy it. If you're not, you need your parent there to buy it. It works just fine, there's no need for state regulation and control on what game is or isn't violent and then banning minors from buying the game.

EDIT: http://www.esrb.org/ratings/ratings_guide.jsp

Sound to me like they just needed to use the ESRB's rating to decide if a game was violent, thats how its done in the UK. Twiz is right about that internet comment though.

The original law was created based on the belief that the ESRB was an inadequate ratings system (despite being rated the strongest of all the voluntary ratings systems here in the US).

This issue was never really about the content or kids being able to acquire it - the ruling doesn't mean that kids should be lining up to buy DNF (nor will they, because the already-established ESRB partnership with retailers already won't allow them to) - it's about the role of government in entertainment. We take our First Amendment right to freedom of expression very seriously over here, and all other forms of entertainment have been found to fall under those protections.

Games, like the film, TV, and music industries, provide voluntary ratings systems to help consumers make an educated decision about whether a movie, tv show, album, or game is right for them or their children. This California law targeted only games, which the justices of the Supreme Court (rightly) ruled is a violation of 1st Amendment protections when compared to other forms of media. After all, why should a local, state, or federal government get to say whether or not Halo can be sold on store shelves while Eli Roth makes Hostel movies and no one bats an eye?

An opposite ruling in this case would have relegated games to government oversight like alcohol, tobacco, and pornography instead of allowing them to exist in parallel to their peers of film, TV, music, books, etc, and would have set disastrous precedent for the entertainment industry as a whole. The Supreme Court made the right call, and it's a relief to see both sides of the political spectrum on the court generally agree (interestingly, the two dissenters were the two more extreme justices on either side, haha)

Damn well said. Sad to see the Congressman who sponsored it played it like the Justices supported Big Business as opposed to the real issue of government control in entertainment.