Violent video game case gets its date in Supreme Court on Nov. 2

@CaptainProtonX

What Terminator game hasn't been garbage? I mean aside from the arcade game.

@That Burning Sensation
Robocop Vs Terminator was awesome.

@Neter

Yeah, that is very true. Though, it was really a Robocop game with Terminators in it.

@Hunter2223

Yeah...I want the Governator doing that job.

..."GAME OVA!"

@Hunter2223

But putting it in the constitution makes it a federal offense if you break it. Yeah I think people should be punished for selling a game to a minor but, charging them of a federal crime? That's a little extreme, a fee is more than enough.

To add doesn't Arnold have some other stuff to think about? Like the economy of his state?

@Hunter2223

Is it just me or the fact that Conan the Barbarian is lecturing people about violence seems a tad bit stupid.

@Hunter2223 the state should step in? and next you'll be saying they should step in and wipe your ass after you take a shit. parents in general need to handle their own shit and stop playin' the fool. you need to chill with that "they should step in" mind-trip though... for real.

@PlatinumSkeet

Skeet, nothing is getting "put in the constitution". That requires a constitutional amendment, which is a completely different process.

The Supreme Court will decide if this state statute is permitted by the Bill of Rights (spoiler: it isn't!). If they rule that that this law is constitutional (spoiler: they won't!), this will remain a state law, not a "federal offense"

Movie ratings enforcements are handled on a voluntary basis, much like the ESRB. You can't fine or arrest a bookseller for letting a 16-year-old get his hands on Catcher In The Rye. We have a long history in this country of not allowing state and federal governnment decide what you are allowed to read, see, play, or learn about. It has served us well.

@PlatinumSkeet

Uhhhhh

No

This is about a state law, not about a constitutional amendment. The precedent set would allow other states to regulate the sales of video games, but wouldn't change the US constitution.

I don't want the Government doing this either... but with parents giving up on their responsibility and sending little Johnny to the Walmart with a C-note to get them out of their hair I think if Johnny can't buy some smokes and beer he shouldn't be buying ultra-violence 3.

MY opinion, and if retailers and parents aren't wiling to be responsible we get the strong hand coming in.

@That Burning Sensation

http://www.virtualshackles.com/107

@Hunter2223 - Think of it this way; This law would put video games on the same level as porn, cigarettes, guns and alcohol (the golden list of things kids can't buy).

Never mind the free speech argument (I've made so many posts on the subject at this point); How about the fact that this law specifically targets games and not music, movies, books, or any other form of entertainment? Not to mention that it does it without a single shred of evidence to prove that games are actually harmful to minors, and in the midst of a self-regulating system (the ESRB ratings system) that is constantly held up as a model of efficiency by the same government that is now hearing this case.

This law is nanny-state BS at its finest. Instead of letting parents decide (as they have with movies, books, and everything else for many years) Arnie is essentially trying to score a few quick political points at the expense of a medium he doesn't care to understand. As always with this sort of thing you can trace the origin of this unconstitutional law right back to parents groups that are so eager to take all of the responsibility for parenting off of their hands.

I need a donut. I can feel that vein popping out of my head again.

@BananaBoat
Well said. On the inside I don't really care, because most stores don't sell M rated games to minors anyway. And other media (like NonRated movies) aren't enforced by law either. But when you think about it, if they start with video games what will they do next? It is obvious that Arnold doesn't understand anything about the medium (like most people) and is just in it for the political points.

@BananaBoat

Well said, and I can't disagree with you.. I guess my thing is I wish more retailers would engage in voluntary enforcement instead of needing stupid laws to do it. The ESRB needs some teeth.

@BananaBoat
I find weird that porn, cigarettes, and alcohol are put at the same level of harming potential as guns...

@Neter

Seriously.Cigarettes and alcohol kill far more people every year in America than guns do.

@BananaBoat

I agree with you it sucks. I like the potential outcome of this law that would reduce the hordes of racist, screaming, children on MW2, but I like my Constitutional protections much more. So yea its pretty unconstitutional but Microsoft, and Sony need to do a better job of informing parents about the vile crap that their demon spawn spew on their service. It doesn't seem any effort is put forth by Microsoft or Sony because they know that the age group of 6-16 is their bread and butter future customers.

@PlatinumSkeet

"But putting it in the constitution makes it a federal offense if you break it. "

I am confused as to why people are upranking this comment when nobody is placing anything "in the constitution". Please tell me there is more understanding of how laws work than this.

@leobebes - I don't even use the headset anymore when I'm playing in a public server on Xbox Live. The potential helpfulness to my team (through telling them where enemies are, where the flag is, etc) is greatly overshadowed by the potential for me to hear a twelve year old* scream the F word followed by the N word in a high pitched voice.


*It's not just kids; I ran into just as many pot smoking jerk wads of all ages, and 1337 h@xx0r5 twenty somethings. People in a party with their friends are often the biggest asshats of all, no matter what age they are.

@mbarriault

I can see now why this state is suffering from a budget crisis. TV ads for California? Millions of tax dollars sunk into trying to limit the first amendment? Sure, why not. It's not like the people voted for a movie actor instead of a properly educated and experinced state official. . . oh wait.

@mbarriault Not that I'm defending Schwarzeneggar, but Reagan kinda opened the floodgates for actors-turned-politicians :P

@mbarriault

Haha, well. . . the last recession and stock market crash was during his 2 terms as president. I guess we haven't learned a damn thing since 1989.

@mbarriault

I agree with you. Games, movies, tv series, etc, should all receive the same treatment.

To anti-game lawmakers, games should be treated more severely, but I can't understand why. I mean, Romeu and Juliet has (Spoiler Alert) teenager suicide, and is taught and performed in schools across the world. A game that has a scene that resembles suicide, say Persona, has a M rating, and would fall under the California Bill.

Games have clear ratings labels, consoles have parent-control, and parent supervision is always advised. So why not just leave games with the same rules applied to movies? Why start the slipery slope?

@mbarriault

"Selling mature-rated games to minors should be an equivalent offence as renting R-rated movies, etc."

I agree. Also, there is no legal penalty for renting R-Rated movies to a teenager because of the F*CKING FIRST AMENDMENT. Movie ratings and enforcement are done by commercial entities, just like games and the ESRB.

"By putting this into federal law..."

Come on, guys, nothing is getting put into federal law here. I'm getting really worried if ya'll are high school graduates.

@mbarriault Actually I'm a Master's student and wasn't paying close attention to the level of government this would be going to. Also, I'm Canadian and somewhat unfamiliar with the American justice system.

@mbarriault


"Selling mature-rated games to minors should be an equivalent offense as renting R-rated movies, etc."

I also agree 100%

@mbarriault
They are not placing anything into federal law here. The supreme court handles decisions in regard to whether another law is constitutional (among other things) - whether federal or state created.

The supreme court docket says:

"California Civil Code sections 1746-1746.5 prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors under 18 where a reasonable person would find that the violent content appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors, is patently offensive to prevailing community standards as to what is suitable for minors, and causes the game as a whole to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors. The respondent industry groups challenged this prohibition on its face as violating the Free Speech Clause of the First Amendment. The court of appeals affirmed the district court's judgment permanently enjoining enforcement of the prohibition.

The questions presented are:
1 Does the First Amendment bar a state from restricting the sale of violent video games to minors?
2. If the First Amendment applies to violent video games that are sold to minors, and the standard of review is strict scrutiny, under Turner Broadcasting System, Inc. v. F.C.C., 512 U.S. 622, 666 (1994), is the state required to demonstrate a direct causal link between violent video games and physical and psychological harm to minors before the state can prohibit the sale of the games to minors?

http://www.supremecourt.gov/Search.aspx?FileName=/docketfiles/08-1448.htm

@butaneko

Damn it, stop giving them ideas!

@butaneko

God forbid a minor buys a "Leisure Suit Larry" game.

@CaptainProtonX
Would it be bad if i played that as a kid?
It definitely wasn't why I became the superhero I am >_>

@Premature ejaculation man

**Fist Bump**

@butaneko I say... your crazy.

@CaptainProtonX God forbind anyone buys a Leisure Suit Larry game

@Raine

Candy guns do sound pretty cool though...

@thisredengine

He was disbarred for being an idiot.

@Deschain Except games are already held to the same standard of films. This law would hold them to an even higher standard. Every other entertainment industry is self regulated so why are games being singled out? Hell, the games industry is BETTER at self regulating than anyone else. I can't remember the last time I got carded to see an R-rated movie. With games I can't remember the last time I wasn't carded to get an M-rated game

@Nexas
I completely agree with you I get carded every time at Gamestop but when I buy a R-rated movie no one cares to ask for an ID ever.

@Nexas

This is based on your experience alone. I've been carded once my whole life for an R rated movie. It was ironically, the first R rated movie I went to see on my own, which happened to be the day I turned 17. I've not been carded since, but I'm legal anyway. Ever since I've bought games on my own (Age 13 maybe) I have never been carded for a game, ever. So by my view, movies are held to the higher standard. I do fully agree that the severity of this issue is being blow out of proportion though. A fine to the seller would be more than sufficient if someone broke the law. The fact of the matter is that only minors are affected by this on the consumer end. And I'm okay with that. Less kids in line at midnight releases, less headaches.

@Nexas

Same here. Im 22 and still get carded every time I buy an M rated game, but its been at least a year since a movie theater carded me.

I attend and buy games from different theaters/stores as well.

@Deschain

The most ridiculous part about all this is THAT THEY ALREADY CAN'T SELL VIDEO GAMES TO MINORS!! So stupid. If a kid under the age of 17 walks into GameStop, WalMart, Target, Best Buy, etc and tries to buy an M-Rated game they required to have their ID check and they WILL NOT be able to buy the game. I don't see why this is even an issue at all

@oJMan240o Holy crap... my grammar there was atrocious. Sorry about that people.

@oJMan240o
Please, learn about the facts before posting.

Video game ratings are NOT law. If Walmart wanted, they could sell an M game to a 5 year old. They choose not to b/c it would be bad publicity. Just like movie ratings are NOT law.

@The Ginger

You need a debit or credit card for that. So unless they have their parents permission (in which case it's a moot point) they can't.