Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Videogames

[Hawk eye1466]

Ok, I'm from the UK where we have the BBFC rating system and most violent games can only be brought by people over 18, and I'm now really confused as to how it works in the US.

So it's not illegal for retailers to sell R rated games to anyone, but they have the choice to refuse the sale, right? So instead of your elected government being in control (by proxy, whatever) of what content children can access, some random at Gamestop is? Sounds pretty odd to me.

Right retaliers can sell M rated games but store and company policy say the kid either has to be old enough or have an adult there to approve the sale the law california was trying to pass would make it illegal to sell them to minors while this doesnt sound that bad what would happen is if a kid made a fake id or someone just made a mistake the store would have to pay a fine for selling to underage kids so most stores would stop selling m rated games just to eliminate all chances of being fined and game companies would either have to stop making m rated games or just go out of business.

 

[Sonic Doctor]

While many parents want the government to raise their children for them...

That is what I find troubling about this country. More and more people are believing in the hair-brained idea that the government should help out with everything in life and watch out for everything and run everything, because people these days seem to think these easy everyday tasks of responsibility are beneath them.

This is the troubling mentality of more an more people:

Why should I have to do the homework to find a healthcare provider that works for me? The government should do it all for me and keep things impossibly cheap.(Oblivious to the fact that it will run even the great doctors out of business.)

I would like to see more people take part in community service. So, why not have the government force kids in high school to take part and if they don't they can't graduate.(It can't possibly be against free will and forcing people to be charitable, oh wait, it is.)

And the icing on the crazy cake: I shouldn't have to watch out for what my kid buys and plays, it is the fault of the industry for making such games.(Ignoring the fact that the industry rates the games so that parents can see what the game is like and knows that it isn't for little 9 year-old Timmy. But I guess the industry is foolish that it thinks parents will be at least a small bit responsible and regulate what their kids play.)

 

[TomInKorea]

Is anyone else scared shitless that two of nine justices supported the law?

I kind of expected it. Some of the conservative justices on the court -- particularly the Bush appointees -- seem to think free speech only applies to speech they like. It's one of the many reasons I find the whole "activist judge" malarky hilarious -- notice how you never hear that phrase from a liberal, even though both sides could make a pretty good argument about the other side's justices having an activist streak. (The real problem with it is that Supreme Court justices have been "legislating from the bench" as the old saw goes since Marbury V. Madison, all the way back in 1803, and it's been a basic part of the Supreme Court's powers ever since then. Complaining about it is like complaining about the president's veto power -- completely idiotic.)

OT: Score one for the good guys, but it's not like this was an unexpected ruling. Any school child could have told you what the ruling would have been, assuming they had had a civics class at some point -- which is sadly not a given these days.

P.S.: As a liberal, I have to give kudos to Scalia for having read the constitution and actually applying it correctly. These don't have to be partisan issues, and it's a shame that it they so often work out that way.

You claim it doesn't have to be a partisan issue, yet take a side swipe at "conservative justices on the court -- particularly the Bush appointees", even though the all of W's appointees agreed with the majority opinion written by Scalia. If you want to disparage Clinton and Poppy, go for it. But at least have the honesty to point out that W's appointees (Roberts and Alito) agreed with your opinion.

 

[Zaydin]

Victory!

 

[The_root_of_all_evil]

It's good to see that the Supreme Court in America understand that an actor who has portrayed video violence and abandoned kids is not the best person to be talking about banning violence and controlling children.

Oh, and that Games can be Art as well.

 

[KiruTheMant]

I believe this sums it up.

 

[Owyn_Merrilin]

Is anyone else scared shitless that two of nine justices supported the law?

I kind of expected it. Some of the conservative justices on the court -- particularly the Bush appointees -- seem to think free speech only applies to speech they like. It's one of the many reasons I find the whole "activist judge" malarky hilarious -- notice how you never hear that phrase from a liberal, even though both sides could make a pretty good argument about the other side's justices having an activist streak. (The real problem with it is that Supreme Court justices have been "legislating from the bench" as the old saw goes since Marbury V. Madison, all the way back in 1803, and it's been a basic part of the Supreme Court's powers ever since then. Complaining about it is like complaining about the president's veto power -- completely idiotic.)

OT: Score one for the good guys, but it's not like this was an unexpected ruling. Any school child could have told you what the ruling would have been, assuming they had had a civics class at some point -- which is sadly not a given these days.

P.S.: As a liberal, I have to give kudos to Scalia for having read the constitution and actually applying it correctly. These don't have to be partisan issues, and it's a shame that it they so often work out that way.

You claim it doesn't have to be a partisan issue, yet take a side swipe at "conservative justices on the court -- particularly the Bush appointees", even though the all of W's appointees agreed with the majority opinion written by Scalia. If you want to disparage Clinton and Poppy, go for it. But at least have the honesty to point out that W's appointees (Roberts and Alito) agreed with your opinion.

Actually, they wrote a concurring opinion that changed the reasoning into something that would have left the industry wide open for another law, one that applied exclusively to videogames; if that had been the majority opinion, it would have been just as bad as a loss.

 

[Tiger Sora]

Since video games are considered art now. Art is thus freedom of speech. I expected this to be knocked down. The system did one right. Least from everything I think I remember from the last while works to be.

 

[poiuppx]

I have problems with that policy, because I think you can either let an industry self-regulate, or impose government regulation with an appeal process. You might have issues with one or the other, but they both have legitimate points on their side.

I think you are overlooking the best possible option. Let individuals make decisions for themselves.

This, this, a billion times this. Laws and regulations that declare X, Y, and Z to be 'unwholesome' are bullshit. Man has a functional brain with the capacity to weigh good and evil and decide; trust in that for what they spend 60 bucks at a time for and do in their spare time.

 

[hardband]

YAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAY

That is all.

 

[MetroidNut]

Freedom of expression protected, videogames accepted by the US Supreme Court as a legitimate form of art.

Quite simply, FUCK YEAH

 

[KirbyKrackle]

But...wouldn't said ban have (at least on paper) led to a severe reduction in the amount of obnoxious 15 year olds that help make online MP games a wretched hive of scum and villainy? Isn't this a phyrric victory? Perhaps I'm misguided...

Nah. Since most stores are actually quite good at policing this stuff themselves, it means that parents are the ones buying those obnoxious kids those games (and then letting them be obnoxious online), and the law explicitly does not stop that, so while the industry suffers, those kids would have continued to get their parents to buy them the latest M-rated online shooter gorefest.

 

[juraigamer]

One small step for gaming, one giant leap for mankind.

 

[Gigano]

Obviously the only reasonable and just result.

Freedom of Expression does not ebb and flow with the medium chosen to exert it. The bile seeping from the unfounded fears of the petty and backwards to whom everything new and unfamiliar is a danger until proven otherwise has thankfully been struck down.

 

[Treblaine]

Ok, I'm from the UK where we have the BBFC rating system and most violent games can only be brought by people over 18, and I'm now really confused as to how it works in the US.

So it's not illegal for retailers to sell R rated games to anyone, but they have the choice to refuse the sale, right? So instead of your elected government being in control (by proxy, whatever) of what content children can access, some random at Gamestop is? Sounds pretty odd to me.

I am also from the UK and in both Britain and America it is, and always has been, THE PARENTS who control what their children have access to and are ultimately responsible for that.

Look it doesn't matter what the law says, if mum says no COD then no COD. If she doesn't care then she will BUY THE GAME FOR THE KID regardless of point-of-sale laws! Kids don't have a lot of money and depend on their parents to buy games and living with their parents with no right to privacy they can't exactly play them without their parents noticing.

Parents need to stop expecting the government to do their job for them. Mainly because THEY ARE BAD at it.

Parents can use discretion and make maturity judgements depending on their beliefs and circumstances that the law and censorship boards cannot.

 

[Sir_Auron_the_Badass]

In the famous words of Mr. C. Montgomery Burns:
This is the greatest legal victory video games could've hoped for. Officially getting protection under the 1st Amendment will stop all those nay-sayers who want to ban or censor games "for the sake of the children". For those that disagree with the SCOTUS decision, I have a few choice phrases I wish to say, but can be quickly and inoffensively summed up with:

 

[CaptainKoala]

Californiaaa.... You're starting to redeem yourself there...
...
...
So don't blow it.

 

[funguy2121]

All

Hell

Can't stop us now!

Oh, only mildly annoying captcha, how I have missed thee.

 

[funguy2121]

Wonder what the vote break down was. I'll have to read about it after work.

...pretty close to exactly what you would guess.