Lawyer Predicts Gaming Win at the Supreme Court

[w-Jinksy]

uhh whats the big deal guys they dont sell a game to anyone unless they meet the age requirements needed in the uk and we get by fine (getting someone else to buy it for you works) or does this mean every violent game including those not rated 18?

 

[JaredXE]

"Only make games as restricted as firearms or tobacco"? You do realize how restricted tobacco is now, right? Hell, it is now ILLEGAL to sell or manufacture flavored cigarettes('cept menthol. Can't piss off the middle-aged women and urban gangbangers). A legal product sold to adults, and they (the FDA) ban a portion of it, not for safety reasons, but because it MIGHT influence minors.

Yeah, this case better get shut down quick.

 

[Scrubbed account]

This probably won't pass. Even if it does, I'm completely unaffected (fortunately). Still, I hope it doesn't. It won't end well if it does.

 

[Dexiro]

I don't see what the issue is, are they arguing that they should enforce the ratings system?

In the UK you have to be 16+ to buy a 16+ game/movie/whatever, i'd be suprised to hear that wasn't the case anywhere else.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

Well that's just confusing; here in the UK it's illegal to sell either to a 10-year-old, why is not illegal to sell something like District 9 to a 10-year-old?

Mostly because legislation on the issue is completely unnecessary, no retailer that hopes to stay in business would allow that to happen in their stores.

Also because movies and video games are rated for content by civilian organizations in the US. It would just be wrong to legislate things based on the rulings of non-government organizations.

 

[Danpascooch]

I'm sure if an internet petition gets enough signatures, the supreme court justices will favor with gamers..........

 

[Weaver]

Wait, so an 8 year old can just walk into a rated R movie by his or her self in the states?

 

[Danpascooch]

I don't see what the issue is, are they arguing that they should enforce the ratings system?

In the UK you have to be 16+ to buy a 16+ game/movie/whatever, i'd be suprised to hear that wasn't the case anywhere else.

The ESRB that rates games in the US is a PRIVATE COMPANY, not an arm of the government, so it's not legally binding, most retailers decide not to let minors buy M rated games though.

It's just not right to pass a law based on the decisions of a private company.

 

[squid5580]

I dunno. If they kept the ratings pretty much the way they are and said AO and M games were illegal to sell to minors I don't see the problem. Just like I believe it should be illegal to sell Hustlers and District 9 to minors.

 

[Rakkana]

Still won't stop them from buying it. Sigh.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

America has a restricted firearms laws?

Most countires already have this law in place, I was surprised to learn America wasn't first in line. Oh yeah, what was with the opening line about child porn?

 

[Dexiro]

I don't see what the issue is, are they arguing that they should enforce the ratings system?

In the UK you have to be 16+ to buy a 16+ game/movie/whatever, i'd be suprised to hear that wasn't the case anywhere else.

The ESRB that rates games in the US is a PRIVATE COMPANY, not an arm of the government, so it's not legally binding, most retailers decide not to let minors buy M rated games though.

It's just not right to pass a law based on the decisions of a private company.

Kind of makes me think the US should adopt a different rating system. I'm not entirely sure how it all works over here in the UK but it works and is pretty simple to understand. If the box says 16 or 18 you have to be over that age!

Now i know it's not always enforced over in America those parents hating on games for making children violent seem a little more justified. If they're the one's who choose what their kids play they can't really complain.

 

[Danpascooch]

I don't see what the issue is, are they arguing that they should enforce the ratings system?

In the UK you have to be 16+ to buy a 16+ game/movie/whatever, i'd be suprised to hear that wasn't the case anywhere else.

The ESRB that rates games in the US is a PRIVATE COMPANY, not an arm of the government, so it's not legally binding, most retailers decide not to let minors buy M rated games though.

It's just not right to pass a law based on the decisions of a private company.

Kind of makes me think the US should adopt a different rating system. I'm not entirely sure how it all works over here in the UK but it works and is pretty simple to understand. If the box says 16 or 18 you have to be over that age!

Now i know it's not always enforced over in America those parents hating on games for making children violent seem a little more justified. If they're the one's who choose what their kids play they can't really complain.

I honestly think that it's fine for minors to play M rated games as long as they are old enough to get the cash, and find a ride to the store themselves, but regardless, this court case is about using the ESRB rating system, and I think we can all agree that the current private corporation rating system should not be made legally binding.

 

[Johnnyallstar]

In light of today's FCC chiding on their vague definition of what "improper" and "indecent" language is, I feel he is right, and the Supreme Court will toss out the Governator's lawsuit. "Violent" is a term that is far too vague, and cannot be adequately defined enough for proper legislature. Example: Mario is violent towards goombas and koopas, so we should ban it? I think not. Most games have some element of violence, and trying to come up with a vague rating scale would be a parade of idiocy.

 

[Luke Cartner]

Silly question, but why is it difficult to categorize what is a violent video game?
They can categorize it in movies after all.
Considering Lazlow Jones stated only terrible parents would let kids play their games (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100833-Rockstar-Only-Terrible-Parents-Buy-Our-Games-for-Their-Kids) I assumed game producers of violent games are ok with this law.

So why the upset?

 

[Galaxy613]

Silly question, but why is it difficult to categorize what is a violent video game?
They can categorize it in movies after all.
Considering Lazlow Jones stated only terrible parents would let kids play their games (http://www.escapistmagazine.com/news/view/100833-Rockstar-Only-Terrible-Parents-Buy-Our-Games-for-Their-Kids) I assumed game producers of violent games are ok with this law.

So why the upset?

Because there are no laws for movies, comic books and etc. People are scared that if they single out video games, they'll start to single out other forms of media.

 

[subtlefuge]

If the government is allowed to regulate what constitutes a "violent game" then the ESRB becomes completely ineffectual. The days of private regulation and developer responsibility will be officially over.

Just look at what happened when the government got involved in Rockstar's affairs after San Andreas.

 

[ProfessorLayton]

"the proposed Californian law that would ban the sale of violent games to minors"

So this isn't only games that are rated (to the equivalent of, I don't know American ratings) 15+ and 18+, but anything deemed to contain violence?

Well, therein lies the whole problem of the "violent" definition that I think he was talking about.

Which is certainly going to be hard to do. I mean, Gears of War (Rated M) is violent and bloody, right? But I'm pretty sure I've killed more humans in Bad Company (Rated T) and in its linear storyline committed several war crimes as well. The problem is in the rating system... Even in Pokemon and Mario there's violence.

This could be very bad. I hate the way they're treating this... there is no reason for them to be so against video games. How about the government lets parents raise their own children? And I really wouldn't be so upset and confused about this if there were any reason for them to be doing this in the first place.

 

[Mr. Gency]

Am I the only one that immediately read the lawyers last name, and thought "oh shi-" before realizing it wasn't him?

The question isn't "did someone else think that?" it's "How many others thought that?" In my particular case, I didn't realize it untill I read the quote.