Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Videogames

[Jodah]

I call for a celebration. Everyone who reads this immediately go play the most violent video game you have available!

 

[imperialreign]

Great to see such a concise decision - after I'm home from work, I'll have to read the full extent of the decision and the dissenting opinions (which I'm really curious about).

Either way, such a one-sided decision means great things for the gaming industry as whole - this sets a precedence which can be used to rout lawsuits in the future. If the decision had been closer to a tie, it'd be quite possible we'd see this issue crop up again . . . but it's not looking that way right now.

Awesome.

 

[Falseprophet]

A victory for gamers and free speech advocates everywhere!

Sweet. Now if Canada could get on this, I'd be a happy platypus.

Ontario decided a few years ago that ESRB ratings have the force of law here [http://www.ofrb.gov.on.ca/english/page15.htm]. Not sure how it works in the rest of Canada.

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. However Ontario's half-measure where they're basically outsourcing government regulation to the industry itself doesn't sit right with me at all. Private industry should not have the power to create (or enforce) the law. But that's the state of affairs here in Ontario.

 

[MrGalactus]

Video games are constitutionally protected, that's obvious, but Wal-Mart being "too big to sue" is a blow far bigger than this is a win. The supreme court is broken.

 

[bombadilillo]

One of the more interesting aspects of the ruling was how it critiqued Justice Breyer's dissent, wherein it was discussed that simply because there is a gap in compliance (as there would always be, whether compliance is voluntary or due to government coercion).

9 JUSTICE BREYER concludes that the remaining gap is compelling because, according to the FTC?s report, some ?20% of those under 17 arestill able to buy M-rated games.? Post, at 18 (citing FTC Report 28). But some gap in compliance is unavoidable. The sale of alcohol to minors, for example, has long been illegal, but a 2005 study suggests that about 18% of retailers still sell alcohol to those under the drinking age. Brief for State of Rhode Island et al. as Amici Curiae 18. Even if the sale of violent video games to minors could be deterred further by increasing regulation, the government does not have a compelling interest in each marginal percentage point by which its goals are advanced.

This point is rather reassuring to me, as it seems the court is inclined to putting a clamp down on excessive government intrusion into private affairs.

YES this is the point. Most everyone agrees that there are games lil kids shouldnt be playing. But it came down to is the esrb good enough? Or does the Gov't need to spend a bunch of money getting regulating videogames when its one of the only industries that actually self regulates properly.

Plus the no "compelling interest" basicly rejects the idea of videogames turning children violent (at least to the extent that the govt feels it should care)

Maybe now they can spend resources on regulating something actually fucked up, like wallstreet.

 

[rembrandtqeinstein]

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.

 

[bombadilillo]

A victory for gamers and free speech advocates everywhere!

Sweet. Now if Canada could get on this, I'd be a happy platypus.

Ontario decided a few years ago that ESRB ratings have the force of law here [http://www.ofrb.gov.on.ca/english/page15.htm]. Not sure how it works in the rest of Canada.

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. However Ontario's half-measure where they're basically outsourcing government regulation to the industry itself doesn't sit right with me at all. Private industry should not have the power to create (or enforce) the law. But that's the state of affairs here in Ontario.

CA didnt even do something simple as that. They wanted to decide indipendently of ESRB about games. (or their law was written badly). People would be less pissed if it just put a fine to the esrb.

 

[Goofguy]

It is good to see common sense and cooler heads prevailing here. Had this gone the other way, I would have been concerned as to the precedent it would set.

 

[dochmbi]

I don't fully understand the case, could someone explain to me what's wrong here?

I mean, they're voting for a law that prohibits the sale of adult rated games to minors. Isn't that how movies work as well? What's the issue here?

Sorry I'm not American so I don't really get it, just curious lol.

Same here, I don't understand this either. On the surface it doesn't seem bad to prohibit the sale of R rated videogames to minors, what would have been the effect to the video game industry had the decicion been different?

 

[tofulove]

and the barbarians who desired to destroy video games like the book burners of eons past were push back by the mighty powers of the supreme court, and for ever more this day will be remembered by all who lived throw those troubling times, may the stories of these heroes be past on generation to generation in tell its legend spans beyond time it self.

 

[dochmbi]

And also the point isn't whether you believe M rated games should be sold to little kids, it's whether they believed that games are any different from films, paintings, novels, etc. So if it had passed, video games would have been treated on the same level as porn and cigarettes. That would have done a lot of damage to video games as a whole. We're already an industry that doesn't like to take risks, so if it would be illegal to take these risks, we'd seriously be dwindled down to nothing but Animal Crossing and while there's nothing wrong with Animal Crossing and nonviolent games like it, I happen to enjoy my LA Noire...

I understand now, thanks.

 

[LetalisK]

Good. I like this decision. Also, hopefully all the chicken littles will shut up. I'm glad the Supreme Court decided this way, but it's a mostly symbolic victory. If they had decided the other way, we'd still have video games and we'd still get violent video games.

 

[Russian_Assassin]

Oh my, what is this? Some good news for once? I am glad it turned out this way. Yay for free speech! Now if we can outlaw gritty "realistic" first person shooters...

 

[Geeky Anomaly]

YYYESSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSSS!!!

OMG, I'm so happy and relieved!!! My day just got better!!!

 

[pwnzerstick]

Oh man I just cannot wait for the fox story on this!

 

[shrekfan246]

I don't fully understand the case, could someone explain to me what's wrong here?

I mean, they're voting for a law that prohibits the sale of adult rated games to minors. Isn't that how movies work as well? What's the issue here?

Sorry I'm not American so I don't really get it, just curious lol.

Same here, I don't understand this either. On the surface it doesn't seem bad to prohibit the sale of R rated videogames to minors, what would have been the effect to the video game industry had the decicion been different?

I'm effectively restating my last post, but whatever.

As it stands now, retailers can refuse to sell M rated games to people without an ID or under the age of 17-18 unless a parent vouches or pays themselves. After the game is bought, the retailer is not liable for anything that happens. If this vaguely worded law had passed, then the parent could later take the retailer to court over allowing their child to play an M rated game, and the parent would win the court battle.

But, it would not have been held to "M" rated games. There are plenty of "T" rated games that have a high level of violence in them, and they could have, under this law, been interpreted as being "harmful to children" who happen to own them. Retailers would be too afraid of lawsuits to stock games with violence, games with violence stop being developed, and pretty soon gaming becomes exactly what close-minded people think it is: Only toys for children. No games like "Bioshock" or "Fallout", no "Starcraft", no "Assassin's Creed", no "Alice: Madness Returns", no "Amnesia: The Dark Descent", no "Crysis", no "Half Life", hell, even "Dungeons And Dragons" would probably be flagged. No "Dragon Age", no "Mass Effect", no "Silent Hill", and definitely no "The Witcher". Games as a whole would be nothing more than interactive action figures.
And hell, I was pretty violent with my action figures when I was young.

EDIT: Also, the whole "falls under freedom of speech along with books, music, movies, etc." thing.

Extra EDIT: Also, no more "Batman: Arkham Asylum" or "The Sims" (I don't know about you, but I can be pretty cruel to those Sims sometimes). And if you can argue that every game I mentioned has absolutely zero merit as an artistic medium...well, I'd hate to spend time with you, quite frankly.

 

[Nautical Honors Society]

Victory!

The US has a pretty good supreme court honestly, they make a lot of good decisions, now let's just get the rest of the government up to par!

 

[Kitsume]

This is awesome <3