ECA: Supreme Court case is 'single most important challenge' ever for game industry

It is a very, very subjective topic. I assume someone is going to come in here and prove that to you shortly.

It's a bad thing because it singles video games out specifically for no justifiable reason. It also infringes the first amendment rights of adults, because it will inevitably skew video game content toward a Teen rating.

Do I want M rated games in the hands of kids? No. They are a large reason why I don't use a headset on Xbox Live anymore unless I'm playing with friends. Having said that, this bill does very little to address the issue. Parents could still buy games for their kids. Most retailers are already self policing and refuse to sell video games to kids anyway. This bill is so completely pointless that it's not even worth the Supreme Court's time.

If for nothing else, this bill needs to be ruled unconstitutional to show special interest groups that they can't infringe upon our (adult) rights over ridiculously unfounded claims about the ills of a medium they don't even understand.

So would people feel better about it if movies were included, too?

It's not that we want M-rated games in the hands of those too young to play them in proper context, it's that video games are being unfairly regulated to this extent. Just like books, movies, and music, the distributors self-regulate their own policies -- walmart cards those buying M-rated games that 'look' under 45, for instance, and if they don't show ID or are too young, they refuse the sell. Not because its illegal to sell it, but because the community at large polices itself on this matter. However, if this legislation passes, it will lead the way to federal guidelines on what can and can not be sold based on its content, and that is arguably a breech of freedom of speech, to restrict such materials to only a certain class of people when it's something that's otherwise freely available on any afternoon of public television, such as violence or language.

That's what the petition is about.

@paul - No. Movies have long been held as an artistic expression that is absolutely protected by free speech. As mentioned by others, the ratings have absolutely no legal bearing. Having said that, how many movie theaters will actually sell a minor a ticket to an R rated movie? Almost none, from my prior experience as a minor. That is without a single law restricting them from selling R rated movie tickets to minors. The same is becoming true for video games; retailers are carding in much higher numbers than they ever have before. There is absolutely no reason for the government to have any hand in the regulation of video games for practical reasons, even before mentioning any questions of policy or constitutionality. There simply is no reason for it, so why is California bothering? They're bothering because they see an easy political victory in picking on a nascent industry. I'm sure parents groups all over the country are salivating at the thought of the government stepping in and potentially doing their jobs for them.

Reuben nailed it!

I do what I can. I just thought that someone with more knowledge on the matter would come forth, and I was right.

The way I see it, this law, at least in its current form, is made of complete fail with just a hint of cheese.

1) They want to punish retailers who sell M rated games to those under the age of 18. This is a form of censorship. Video games may not be "art" to Ebert, but they're still a form of speech media. Historically, for the Supreme Court to uphold a form of censorship, they've always required there to be an offsetting constitutional right at play, such as freedom of speech vs. public safety (i.e., yelling "fire" in a crowded theater), speech vs. right to privacy, etc. California will argue that this is a case of public safety, but I just don't see it happening. The link is far too delicate.

2) The law is based on the ratings of a voluntary ratings board. The ESRB is not a government bureaucracy, they're a subset of an industry trade group. So basically, by upholding this law, the Supreme Court would either need to declare that the ESRB as an independent agency is authoritative on the subject (which is insane), or would need to create a Federal and official ESRB (which I really hope doesn't happen).

Just don't see California winning.

ECA means "Ewwww" in my country, like: Disgusting!

Australia.

Because it WON'T mean that. Kids still aren't usually allowed to purchase M-rated titles right now. Still, they end up with them due to bad parenting. A bill like this isn't going to stop idiots from giving it to their children.

It won't make a difference since these kids are just going to get their parents to buy them. I think it's a fair concern, as is evidenced by the fact that AO games aren't made often/ever for consoles and I think many stores have corporate policy where they won't even stick AO stuff on the shelves.

IT'S FINE though, I think, if the focus shifts to kid friendly & less fun games. We're already there. Dirty was telling me about some game he was playing with hell and flying knives and vaginas and stuff, I mean c'mon, we're already at kid friendly and less fun.

I think I like your version of the logo more than the actual one.

I always thought is was some sort of abstract may reproductive organ.

But to each his own.

*male, not may