While we did our best to provide extensive coverage of the Supreme Court's ruling on violent video games, all we could really do was write the news and related analysis, which could lead only to the most superficial understanding of the nuances of this precedent-setting decision.
To really understand the case, you need to see computer-generated recreations of the justice-versus-justice gunfights that led to this historic decision -- and that's why NMA World Edition is so important. Head past the break and begin your legal education in earnest.
Fake animated Scalia was starting to lose my support when he machine gunned my beloved state, but really won me back when he swiped that skin rag. That is some dirty justice he is doling out.
"OH BOY! I'm going to go out and kill hookers, but don't worry I won't have sex with them or look at their no-no parts."
Seriously though I'm happy we all get our games, but I will still never understand why here in America, it's okay to show taking a life, but it's god awful to show the process of making a life.
@Milkman4321 Dude, I think I love you....that comment was so insighful and perfect in the analogy.....we should get married....wait that too is only allowed in, what is it with NY, 7 states and frowned upon by a large part of the country? (I think the majority is pro gay marrige)
At least within my social sphere, many people don't object to showing "the process of making a life" so much as they do object to the (albeit perceived) trivialization of the act by most forms of entertainment.
If this really is the root of the problem, then your question could likely be rephrased as "Why it is acceptable to trivialize the destruction of a life but not the process leading to the creation of one?"
As for the answer to this question -- your guess is as good as mine.
This really hit it on the head. We'll always allow violent content but never sexual content. Which is very weird as sex is a much needed function to continue humanity as where violence can destroy humanity.
As to all the questions regarding violence being allowed and not nudity. As to the courts expressed ruling. The law is strictly enforced based of a historical standard. We have never really shielded children from violence, and so we are not going to violate the first amendment to do so. We have however shielded "obscenity" in the past so it is a fair exception to add "for minors".
Precedent shouldn't be as heavily influencing as it is. Times change, and things in the past weren't always correct. Things should be looked at within current contexts, and not always the context of the past. This is absolutely ridiculous. Kids have been shielded from violence. It's called R-rated movies. You can't buy a ticket unless you are at least 17 or have a 21-year-old-or-older guardian with you. As others have said, shield from creation of life (in a way) but not from destruction of life? They can spin it however they want, but this will never make any sense.
@supervinny313 You might want to pull your foot out of your mouth and double check your claims. There is absolutely no law in the US regarding the sales of tickets or DVDs of R-rated movies. There's also none concerning the sale of explicit content on CDs or concerts. These all have voluntary rating enforcement systems, exactly like the ESRB. Not permitting minors to buy that ticket is purely the theater's decision, exactly like Best Buy not selling the M-rated game unless you have a valid ID, or are with a guardian.
The really screwy thing about games rating system constantly being under attack is that it's the best enforced than any of the other things I mentioned: http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2011/04/violentkidsent.shtm
I've worked at a movie theater, I know there is no actual law. But at almost every theater, it is enforced. So, yes, legally, kids were not shielded from violence, but culturally, clearly they have been by most places.
