Supreme Court's Scalia believes game laws could be constitutional

Funny - I thought those conservative types wanted less government oversight of personal lives.

Same guy who says torture is perfectly legal.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/law_in_action/7238665.stm

I work at a game store which has strict regulations as to what we have to do when an M rated game is purchased. We have to tell the parent, right there, what the back label states is in the game. I can tell you right now that I have sold far too many copies of JTs favorite game (Rhymes with ROBOTO) to kids under 12 on the permission of their parents, with the explanation of "It's ok, he plays it at his friend's house..." or some other like shit like that.

This is the same company that will fire not only me, but also my store manager if we sell 1 game to a minor without parental consent. All this without an actual LAW on the books.

With all this talk of self regulation vs. government regulation, take a look at this:

Movies - Self regulated. MPAA
Music - Self regulated. RIAA
Television - Self regulated (sort of) FCC
Alcohol - Government regulation
Tobacco - Government regulation
Firearms - Government regulation
Drugs (both legal and otherwise) - Government regulation

Notice something? All of the government regulated issues are things that can actually KILL you. I'm not talking about things that will kill other people, because an argument could be made that certain slasher flicks cause copy cat crimes in real life... but rather the things that could cause harm to yourself. This should only be an issue if Hack Thompson's argument was "Johnny didn't kill himself, the video game disc he used to slice open his jugular killed him."

The government has a long history of making laws to tell you how to live. Most of those laws we don't give a second thought to anymore, such as the legal age of drinking being 21, or cigarettes not being sold to anyone under 18. Regulating video games by either a Federal or State mandate, should NOT be one of them. The ESRB, while not a regulatory body, does a pretty fine job at telling you what is in said games.

Well atleast ill be 18 by the time any of this shit happens =]

Everything Scalia said is correct. He's a judge talking in lawyer-speak. What the common person misses is that when a lawyer says "speech can be regulated if it's obscene" is that the legal threshold of "obscene" is ridiculously high and basically means "porn". A game that is violent but not pornographic will probably never be deemed obscene because violence is something that one encounters in everday public life while sex is typically something that is done in private.

The reason why every single video game censorship law goes down in flames is because they are overly broad and all focused on violence, primarily because kids' access to porn is already restricted.

Unnessesary laws for unnexistent problem...blablabla...no real evidence...yaddayadda(snore)

Friend, you are a beacon of light in a dark world...

Uh...meant to KCVOCALS

There's no need for everyone to post what they think about video game restrictions/laws here. Just go to one of the thousands of blog entries on gamepolitics.com and read through them until you find one as liberal/conservative as you like, and pretend you wrote it.

The only problem with the internet is that it allowed Joe Everyman to become his own 'newspaper editor,' and we learned how little he has to say . . .