Supreme Court overturns California ban on violent video game sales or rental to kids

The high court agreed Monday with a federal court’s decision to throw out California’s ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento said the law violated minors’ rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments.

The Washington Post

This is one of those freedom of decisions that you are happy that are protected, but you cringe having to do so.

Now first let me state my personal viewpoint, I do not think children should be playing violent video games. Period. But that does not mean you can restrict the sale of media, anymore then you can stop a teen from buying a violent movie. It is not the violent video game that makes children go to the dark side, it is the bad parenting. Children who are allowed to play these video games are already at a disadvantage socially, because their parents are not involved, or don't care, so they don't care what influences them.

But who buys them is not up for the government to decide. Or should they?

reply to post by nixie_nox


We police our own children, or not. We police our own stores, or not.

There is no room for government to be involved with anything past the constitution or we all fail instead of just the failures.

reply to post by nixie_nox


So you would then argue for letting 12-year-old boys rent porn from Blockbuster?

I respectfully (and strongly) disagree with the court's ruling.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Personally I think we should side with the constitution here, and let the State of California decide. Aren't movies already in this category? For example, if a 15 year old kid wants to rent an NC-17 movie, does the law say he/she can't, or is that a decision left to the merchant? Do video games and other forms of media (movies, music) fall into different categories? If so, what is the motivation for allowing violent video games to be sold or rented to a minor but not allowing music or movies to be treated the same? Is it perhaps because pretty much every FPS video game lately is geared heavily toward glorifying the military and boosting it's recruitment and the Justices are aware of, and complicit in this agenda?

This decision confuses me for the reasons stated above.

“The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that “the freedom of speech,” as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents or guardians,” Thomas wrote.

I think this might be the first time ever that I agree with Justice Clarence Thomas. Evar.

Originally posted by TreadUpon
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

We police our own children, or not. We police our own stores, or not.

Some of you are doing a really piss-poor job policing your children. I guess I am just supposed to deal with that.

I have to disagree with the court on this one. Had this been in any way related to a federal law, I would see things very differently. However it is precisely these things which the Constitution DOES leave to the states to regulate until or unless it crosses a specific Constitutional right that is clearly spelled out, not a "right" someone really wishes were there and kinda sort can make out of they read it just so,..and turn it just right under proper lighting...etc..

Let the states make their laws on such regulations and if we don't like it, we are close enough to our State government to bounce their butts into the street, just as the system was supposed to function.

My Personal view is that playing PacMan or Galactica in the days I was growing up has absolutely no comparison to being ranked and awarded for more graphic and depraved ways to kill a fellow avatar controlled by a human being than the next guy. It never used to be true that one could get 200 headshot kills on another person via their computer presence in the time it takes to read Snow White....It's a totally different world and I don't mind regulation AS LONG as it's coming at a fairly local level where we can adjust such things FROM the local level if they go too far.

Bottom line is we police our own kids. Parents who are insisting that this sort policing should be legislated are lazy parents period - sorry a spade is a spade and I call it like I see it.

This falls into the same category as music and movies. There is NO law (and nor should there be one) that says a store can or can't sell an R or NC-17 rated DVD or explicit lyrics CD to a minor. Stores enforce these rules themselves. They do so because parents are customers as well and they stand to loose more money from angry parents and bad press otherwise. Same with a movie theater (and I say this from personal experience of over 10 years in the industry in my youth) - there is NO law or statute that says a movie theater can not sell a ticket to an R or NC-17 rated film to a minor. They restrict it out of their own policy.

This is how it should be. If I feel my child can handle an R rated film then its my choice to take them or let them watch the DVD.

Don't underestimate kids, they can handle a lot more than a lot of adults give them credit for. Violent video games and movies do not create violent kids. That notion has been spun to hell and back by the MSM for decades and there hasn't been any numbers to back it. In fact numerous studies have been done that reveal the exact opposite. I'm personally so sick of this "kinder, gentler, pc nation" that's being pushed. I grew up watching Hammer horror films with my parents when I was under 10. I watched loads of animated cartoon violence. And I'm probably one of the nicest and sane people you'll meet. I turned out mostly normal by todays standards.

Originally posted by Schkeptick
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

So you would then argue for letting 12-year-old boys rent porn from Blockbuster?

I respectfully (and strongly) disagree with the court's ruling.

What?

Which stores do you know that would do that without the employer selling or renting the movies to be suspended or fired from their job for doing so?

And who would argue the case for that anyway? Are you saying that purely to be awkward?

I'm glad the court ruled this because it's up to the parents in charge of those underage children to keep them under control. It's also up to the people in the stores to check for ID and know enough common sense to be able to tell if someone looks underage.

Originally posted by Terrormaster
Bottom line is we police our own kids. Parents who are insisting that this sort policing should be legislated are lazy parents period - sorry a spade is a spade and I call it like I see it.

You need to open your eyes. Some of us do not have kids but we are sick of living in a society full of juvenile delinquents because there are lazy parents. I should not have to pay for the sins of the same people you want to knock as if people like me do not exist. I doubt you enjoy putting up with children that come from parents that care not to raise them. I get sick of them breaking into my car, personally. But the bottom line should be states rights. As long as the SC does not want CA to stop kids from buying Duke Nukem forever then I do not see how they can allow age restrictions on Playboy Magazine, R rated movies, etc.

Mostly it will just be fun to watch all the pseudo conservatives come to this thread to applaud that trampling of states rights.

But But... the government is out to strip us of our rights and take away our liberty's and the powers that be want to see the destruction of the United States and .....

This is yet another sign of the people winning that will shortly be overlooked by the majority as it flies in the face of government oppression.

If any of you super parents are doing such great jobs policing your own kids then wouldn't you know what your kids are buying? So you would be there when they buy it because you are not so naive as to just trust a teenager are you? So if you are there anyway, what is the big deal?

When I was a kid I could not buy The Texas Chainsaw Massacre and a copy of Penthouse so I really see no big deal if CA wants to make sure all the super parents out there come along with their kids to show their support. I think some parents are just too lazy to go to the damn store for or with their kids.

reply to post by nixie_nox


Why should they ban it? I, for one, am glad this ruling was overturned.
Get rid of nanny states BS!
I am so sick of it, it's like you can't even breathe anymore without someone telling you you're doing something WRONG!

Having read the article and the justices opinion, Brow vs. Entertainment Merchants Association (2010), www.supremecourt.gov... the following can be stated:
This is a case where the state of California is trying to over step its bounds in an attempt to protect the children from what it would consider to be violent media, claiming that the video games presented were not protected under the constitution of the US, and preventing a person under a certain age from purchasing said video game, by making such age restricted. In both the opinion and the dissenting opinions, it brings up the point of the parents, as the law does not curtail a parent, or someone older purchasing a game and giving it to someone who is younger that can not purchase it.
While there is some evidence that would state that such is not good from children, the justices did ask what is the difference between a video game that depicts violence and say cartoons that a child would watch on Saturday morning, or on cartoon network? After all the older cartoons are full of violence and destruction, some of the cult classics and animated movies from Japan are littered with violence and destruction on such a grand scale. The news papers and news media are often splashed with stories of gruesome murders, and violence that is on page one. Even the traditional fairy tales by the Grime Brothers, those are not so violence free, often containing acts of violence and murder. Even the popular childhood movies, the block busters that every child wants to see, has some form of violence that the parents take them to see. The question, was asked by the justices and in their opinions, stated that it has to be the parents who have the final say in what their children can and can not, read, or view in the media. It has to be the parents, not the state to make that determination as to what is fit and what is not for a child to watch. How can the state forbid the displaying of say a nude image in a video game or that of violence, while at the same time allowing children to view a work of art, such as the works of Michangelo, or even the Bayeux taperstry, both having been known for both nudity and scenes of violence, yet one would be considered works of art and the other obscene? In all of the opinions, the justices agree that the law is too vague, and fails on that count.
Some would say well a child who is 15 can not rent a movie that is nc-17, yet fails to take into account his friends and family who may be older and able to rent such and give it to him. Should the law intrude into the home life of a family, and whose values are to be used in that case? Each child is different and the parents should know what their child is and is not capable of handling in the way of media. And ultimately it is the parents, not the government who should govern their home and their children. And that too was in the opinion of the court, both sides.

Originally posted by Backslider
reply to post by nixie_nox

 

Personally I think we should side with the constitution here, and let the State of California decide. Aren't movies already in this category? For example, if a 15 year old kid wants to rent an NC-17 movie, does the law say he/she can't, or is that a decision left to the merchant? Do video games and other forms of media (movies, music) fall into different categories? If so, what is the motivation for allowing violent video games to be sold or rented to a minor but not allowing music or movies to be treated the same? Is it perhaps because pretty much every FPS video game lately is geared heavily toward glorifying the military and boosting it's recruitment and the Justices are aware of, and complicit in this agenda?

This decision confuses me for the reasons stated above.

“The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that “the freedom of speech,” as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents or guardians,” Thomas wrote.

I think this might be the first time ever that I agree with Justice Clarence Thomas. Evar.

To answer your question, yes there are ratings like NC17 on video games, a 17 yr old is still a minor so I am assuming they were trying to disregard the rating and not sell/rent to children of 17 yrs of age, even though the rating clearly states that it is ok for 17 yr olds. I could be wrong but this is my perception. I let my kids play these games and speak to them, my kids aren't psycho gunmen, it's all in the parenting.
And no just because some parents allow it, does NOT mean they're NOT involved. I, for one am involved and discuss these things with my children like what is ok for fantasy as opposed to reality. etc.

Based on that decision, it would be possible to say that kids have a free speech right to buy porn at any age. One could also argue against laws restricting the sale of cigarettes to minors using this ruling.

Lawyers can use this ruling to argue that freedom of speech gives minors the right to spend their money any way they see fit. They will argue that restricting the commercial activity of minors is a violation of their 1st Amendment rights and will tear down laws designed to protect the innocence of children and protect them from making harmful decisions before they achieve a sufficient maturity level to understand the consequences of their decisions.

These laws were put in place to aid good responsible parents who don't want their kids exposed to these things. If you take away the laws, then kids can go behind their parent's backs to buy inappropriate games which the parents would never approve of. The only kids who were getting their hands on these games before were the kids whose parents didn't care what games their kids were playing because they had to get their parents to buy the games for them under the old law. Now anybody's kid can walk into a store and buy whatever game they want without their parents knowledge of approval.

This decision is a blow against parental rights to decide how their children are to be raised and what they are allowed to be exposed to.

Originally posted by Terrormaster
Bottom line is we police our own kids. Parents who are insisting that this sort policing should be legislated are lazy parents period - sorry a spade is a spade and I call it like I see it.

This falls into the same category as music and movies. There is NO law (and nor should there be one) that says a store can or can't sell an R or NC-17 rated DVD or explicit lyrics CD to a minor. Stores enforce these rules themselves. They do so because parents are customers as well and they stand to loose more money from angry parents and bad press otherwise. Same with a movie theater (and I say this from personal experience of over 10 years in the industry in my youth) - there is NO law or statute that says a movie theater can not sell a ticket to an R or NC-17 rated film to a minor. They restrict it out of their own policy.

This is how it should be. If I feel my child can handle an R rated film then its my choice to take them or let them watch the DVD.

Don't underestimate kids, they can handle a lot more than a lot of adults give them credit for. Violent video games and movies do not create violent kids. That notion has been spun to hell and back by the MSM for decades and there hasn't been any numbers to back it. In fact numerous studies have been done that reveal the exact opposite. I'm personally so sick of this "kinder, gentler, pc nation" that's being pushed. I grew up watching Hammer horror films with my parents when I was under 10. I watched loads of animated cartoon violence. And I'm probably one of the nicest and sane people you'll meet. I turned out mostly normal by todays standards.

I agree entirely. I wish I could star your reply 100x's. I also watched slasher movies before I turned ten, I also have seen sheltered children who were kept from everything their entire childhood turn into complete psycho-sociopaths and just plain out rebellious, because they were sheltered...that or they're completely inept adults (they live at their parents home and their parents still wipe their butts).

hahahha policy on video games, its funny how nobody knows how to raise children anymore. you gotta let the government handle that.

do you still want children? nO, then wear a condom

The industry viluntarilly chose to regulate itself much like the music and film industry with ratings.

Retailers can and usually opt into enforcement of the ratings and will usually not sell an R or M rated product to some kid.

So why all the bother with a "law?"

The industry is doing what's right. Retailers are doing what's right. Parents, well, should be doing what they feel is right.

So why push for an unnecessary law that wouldn't make any difference even if it were upheld?

Nanny staters can't stand the fact that the people can regulate themselves?


Posted Via ATS Mobile: m.abovetopsecret.com

I think the problem with this being decided on a local level is there is nothing to stop the kids from ordering it online or just going over state lines. So deciding this on a state level is kinda moot.

And there are situations where parents can't monitor everything their kids play, if the parent is away at work, or at war, or seperated and one parent lets the kid watch it.

I do think that the ratings are very good indicator for parents, they are volunteer groups of people from all walks of life who decide these ratings based on basic criteria.

I wanted to clarify my position on this. I think the state is within it's rights to restrict the sales of violent media or sexual media to minors. I think the federal government has overstepped it's bounds by overturning the state's decision.

I agree that some kids handle fantasy well while others don't, and that ultimately the parents need to be responsible for their kids. Some people here are arguing that this law, had it not been overturned, would have taken responsibility AWAY from the parents, but that is complete nonsense. This law would have RESTORED power to the parents by making it mandatory that they decide whether or not their kids should be playing these games. Too many parents sit back and let their kids run amok - I believe this law, in a very limited way, would have forced these parents to take a more active role and to actually see what their kids are consuming.

I am a parent by the way, although my oldest is just getting to the point where she would be making these types of purchases on her own. I would be pleased to learn that she had been denied the purchase of an adult themed game or movie had she attempted to purchase one. Fortunately I am confident that she would have no interest in these items.