Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Videogames

[MB202]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QEmbOL3AAEs

...That's all I have to say.

 

[snfonseka]

This is great news.

 

[crimson sickle2]

Awesome, I'm glad my favorite medium of art is safe, for now at least.

I love how this thread has turned into a celebration, video thread.

 

[Druyn]

If you guys haven't, I would go look at that link to the details. Go down to Alito's decision, and read his second paragraph. Its a thing of beauty. It is correct in so many different ways.

 

[Seives-Sliver]

Victory!

 

[Aprilgold]

Fuck.... Yes.... But only one question, can a 10 Year old go buy a R rated game? Well, either way, we win, so Arnold can go back with some shit and eat it. Common sense wins, YYYAAAAHH!!

 

[thePyro_13]

Why even bother having a rating system?
Why isn't porn free speech as well, by the sounds of this article, all media should be?

I love my games, but I think it should still be regulated properly. The ratings should be enforced, rather than being half-hearted guidelines. This is just going to worsen the reputation of games as parents see their younger children bring home games which are wholly unsuitable for them to possess.

Games would never be "Banned" but the rating system should be in control of the government and retailers should be legally obliged to uphold them.

 

[Magicman10893]

After their ruling about Westboro Baptist Church I was worried that they might fuck this decision up too! Thank God I was wrong!

I have a problem with that statement. They DIDN'T fuck up the WBC decision. They made the right decision. Yes, we all hate the WBC, but they are well within their rights. As much as it sucks, the First Amendment protects ass holes like them, too. And, honestly, I'm surprised they did considering the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case a few years back.

I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend, to the death, your right to say it.
[sub]Or something like that[/sub]

The 1st Amendment has its limit, and I think performing a protest at a funeral, especially when the protest is blatant hate speech or unwarranted, with the only intent being to anger and annoy the friends and family of the dead person is WAY beyond the limit of the 1st Amendment. Or at least it is to me.

 

[Saltyk]

After their ruling about Westboro Baptist Church I was worried that they might fuck this decision up too! Thank God I was wrong!

I have a problem with that statement. They DIDN'T fuck up the WBC decision. They made the right decision. Yes, we all hate the WBC, but they are well within their rights. As much as it sucks, the First Amendment protects ass holes like them, too. And, honestly, I'm surprised they did considering the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case a few years back.

I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend, to the death, your right to say it.
[sub]Or something like that[/sub]

The 1st Amendment has its limit, and I think performing a protest at a funeral, especially when the protest is blatant hate speech or unwarranted, with the only intent being to anger and annoy the friends and family of the dead person is WAY beyond the limit of the 1st Amendment. Or at least it is to me.

We have to disagree on that. I think the First Amendment should be expanded, if anything. Largely, I'd just like to see minors given some more recognition of Free Speech rights.

Trust me, the WBC are the worst trolls in history, but they know their legal rights and what they can get away with. I'd much rather see them abuse their rights than see others denied theirs. At least this way, everyone is given a fair chance.

And before you start, you do NOT have a right to not be offended. If the WBC offends you, good. That means you are a decent human being deep down.

 

[Magicman10893]

After their ruling about Westboro Baptist Church I was worried that they might fuck this decision up too! Thank God I was wrong!

I have a problem with that statement. They DIDN'T fuck up the WBC decision. They made the right decision. Yes, we all hate the WBC, but they are well within their rights. As much as it sucks, the First Amendment protects ass holes like them, too. And, honestly, I'm surprised they did considering the "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" case a few years back.

I may disagree with what you say, but I'll defend, to the death, your right to say it.
[sub]Or something like that[/sub]

The 1st Amendment has its limit, and I think performing a protest at a funeral, especially when the protest is blatant hate speech or unwarranted, with the only intent being to anger and annoy the friends and family of the dead person is WAY beyond the limit of the 1st Amendment. Or at least it is to me.

We have to disagree on that. I think the First Amendment should be expanded, if anything. Largely, I'd just like to see minors given some more recognition of Free Speech rights.

Trust me, the WBC are the worst trolls in history, but they know their legal rights and what they can get away with. I'd much rather see them abuse their rights than see others denied theirs. At least this way, everyone is given a fair chance.

And before you start, you do NOT have a right to not be offended. If the WBC offends you, good. That means you are a decent human being deep down.

I agree that the First Amendment should be expanded upon (minors getting more rights is also an area that I agree with), but in the end there is still a limit to what is acceptable. Letting them abuse their rights is just as bad as being denied rights to me. There needs to be some kind of addition to help prevent abuses like WBC does on a near constant basis.

 

[gnomebard]

Why even bother having a rating system?
Why isn't porn free speech as well, by the sounds of this article, all media should be?

I love my games, but I think it should still be regulated properly. The ratings should be enforced, rather than being half-hearted guidelines. This is just going to worsen the reputation of games as parents see their younger children bring home games which are wholly unsuitable for them to possess.

Games would never be "Banned" but the rating system should be in control of the government and retailers should be legally obliged to uphold them.

The thing is that the system in place now (as mentioned in the case if you care to read it in full)is 80% effective. Compare that to the LAW governing alcohol sales to the underaged at 82% effective. Having government oversight would only give about a (perhaps) 5% increase in success.

Like it or not the ESRB is one of the most effective rating systems in the United States. And also note that movie ratings are not government enforced either. It's simply that retailers and distributors have set up a system that helps avoid lawsuits from parents who misguidedly buy a game/movie or let their kids buy a game/movie that's too "obscene" for their kids (in their view).

If kids bring home some "M" rated games (that most game store employees would card them for if they look younger than 17) and the parents don't like it, they should take it upon themselves to take the games away.

Had this law passed then any game with "deviant violence against a human image" (the definition of a human image was very broad) would have to be bought by somebody 18+. Which I'll note would include every final fantasy game ever made, super smash brothers games, metroid games, world of warcraft, the entire lego series and many more games that have a rating of "E" or often lower.

What I've just said is nothing new, if you care to read the first 3 pages of this comments section you'll see other similar posts (often with better examples) about this subject.

 

[thePyro_13]

Why even bother having a rating system?
Why isn't porn free speech as well, by the sounds of this article, all media should be?

I love my games, but I think it should still be regulated properly. The ratings should be enforced, rather than being half-hearted guidelines. This is just going to worsen the reputation of games as parents see their younger children bring home games which are wholly unsuitable for them to possess.

Games would never be "Banned" but the rating system should be in control of the government and retailers should be legally obliged to uphold them.

The thing is that the system in place now (as mentioned in the case if you care to read it in full)is 80% effective. Compare that to the LAW governing alcohol sales to the underaged at 82% effective. Having government oversight would only give about a (perhaps) 5% increase in success.

Like it or not the ESRB is one of the most effective rating systems in the United States. And also note that movie ratings are not government enforced either. It's simply that retailers and distributors have set up a system that helps avoid lawsuits from parents who misguidedly buy a game/movie or let their kids buy a game/movie that's too "obscene" for their kids (in their view).

If kids bring home some "M" rated games (that most game store employees would card them for if they look younger than 17) and the parents don't like it, they should take it upon themselves to take the games away.

Had this law passed then any game with "deviant violence against a human image" (the definition of a human image was very broad) would have to be bought by somebody 18+. Which I'll note would include every final fantasy game ever made, super smash brothers games, metroid games, world of warcraft, the entire lego series and many more games that have a rating of "E" or often lower.

What I've just said is nothing new, if you care to read the first 3 pages of this comments section you'll see other similar posts (often with better examples) about this subject.

I see. I assumed the US had a system like Australia(although with an 18+ rating) where violent games like FF would be classed as 15+ and more obscene games would be adult only. And that this issue was about whether to actually enforce these by law as or leave them as a recommendation enacted on at the whim of the industry.

I suppose that's what I get for assuming the goal of the legislation was logical and relevant based on other systems currently in place. :S

Though I completely disagree with the summary the escapist used: "Prohibiting sale of "violent games" to minors is unconstitutional." As I find that to be insane.

 

[rossatdi]

Is it unconstitutional then for parents to ban their children from playing violent videogames?

 

[Strazdas]

I dont think there is a need for a celebration. its only logical that this would be the decision and thinking otherwise would be insane. Then again Rockstar did get penalized because someone made a mod, so USA law sometimes is insane.

 

[CVLawes]

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.

That's what I dno't get. Over here it is illegal, and stores get fined for selling games to underage kids. It doesn't stop them selling them, it just puts pressure on the store to make sure they are not selling to underage kids. If a parent is ok with their kid playing the game, they can buy it for them, no problems.

It still doesn't make sense to me that the rating are controlled by common consent, rather then a dedicated group of people directly accountable to government, but I do understand that this particular law seems to have been poorly drawn up and I'm happy that it was thrown out.

 

[Kroxile]

You know, if it weren't for the fact that the only reason this was ruled the way it was is so that big corporations can make their money no matter who it hurts I would be pretty happy with this.

 

[proctorninja2]

we fought the law and we won!

 

[Baneat]

So, does this mean that a 10-year-old can now go out and buy Duke Nukem or any other R rated game?

It will be the same as it always was. That 10 year old can go out and try and buy the game and it is entirely up to the retailer if they want to sell it to them or not. In all likelyhood if the child went to gamestop he would be denied but if he went anywhere else he would be able to buy the game.

This is good.. why?