Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Videogames

[Realitycrash]

Que happy-dance!

 

[-Dragmire-]

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.

Our system seems to work fine. I was playing 18+ games when I was younger, as my parents would buy them for me. Essentially this means that parents have much more control over what there kids play/watch etc, which is surely the way it should be? Kids are not born rational and responsible, they have to learn it, and most of that comes from parents.

I'm not entirely sure but I think it had to do with M rated games not being the equivalent to an 18+ movie but to pornography. No family friendly store would be willing to stock that kind of product.

 

[Treblaine]

Unfortunately, looking at some comments on the matter on other news sites, most people are still in favor of restricting video games in such a way.
Given the ignorance of many people on just how the ESRB and retailers work, even on this very site, I sincerely doubt this is the end.

Generally the supreme court is the end for just about everything. Also what websites are you looking at I cruised over to CNN.com and everyone there seem to be in favor of this decision.

Just now I went to Fox's website to look at the comments (I know this is not a representation of everyone's opinion). The article itself was, of course, spun against games. Most of the comments were ignorant drivel, saying that a minor can just go buy violent games now, but they can't buy violent movies (see my original post for why this is false).

I'm extraordinarily pissed off at the ignorance. I'm far from being a liberal, but also far from being a conservative. I sincerely hope this is the end of this.

Yeah bottom line: it cannot be a felony to sell violent video games to anyone.

Sure this means children can be sold violent video games but ONLY IF:
-parents are monumentally irresponsible giving them money, free time and no oversite for them to acquire and also play the violent games.
-the stores in easy reach of children even allow sales to minors

This is pivotal in how it protects adult gamers from being targeted by laws that purpose to protect children *cough*Australian-internet*cough*

 

[Gxas]

This does mean that anything similar to this will be immediately shot down, correct?

 

[thepj]

It's times like this that remind me not all Americans are backwater bible bashers who want to ban all forms of entertainment more graphic than a trashy by-the-numbers sitcom. It makes me feel glad.

 

[Hanibal_Rising]

Oh sweet Jesus yes!!!! Can I get a woot woot?!

 

[Charli]

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

Not if a store itself wants to get sued no. This was to try and prevent it at a more invasive (drug dealing if you ask me) level, if you were caught re-selling it to a minor for example you would get fined.

The ratings are now still in the same bandwagon as movies.
If it's got a sticker with a rating on it, it's recommended to stick to it but in the end it is entirely up to the discretion of the user/users guardian as it should be.

The long term effect it would have had on the video game industry would have been overly catastrophic.

 

[cynicalsaint1]

From the opinion:

Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media. Since California has declined to restrict those other media, e.g., Saturday morning cartoons, its video-game regulation is wildly underinclusive, raising serious doubts about whether the State is pursuing the interest it invokes or is instead disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint.

Glad to see they saw through the silliness of all these so-called "studies".

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

Well, I am very happy about this.

I knew my homeboy Scalia would come through on this!

WHOOO HOOOOOO!

 

[razer17]

I still don't get why this is good news. I mean, to me it makes sense to not allow minors to buy violent videogames. Here in Britain BBFC classifications are legally enforceable, which means minors who want violent games need ID to prove their age, or have an adult buy it for them.

I see no problem with prohibiting kids buying violent videogames, so someone explain to me why this decision is such a good thing please.

 

[dyre]

Unfortunately, looking at some comments on the matter on other news sites, most people are still in favor of restricting video games in such a way.
Given the ignorance of many people on just how the ESRB and retailers work, even on this very site, I sincerely doubt this is the end.

Generally the supreme court is the end for just about everything. Also what websites are you looking at I cruised over to CNN.com and everyone there seem to be in favor of this decision.

Just now I went to Fox's website to look at the comments (I know this is not a representation of everyone's opinion). The article itself was, of course, spun against games. Most of the comments were ignorant drivel, saying that a minor can just go buy violent games now, but they can't buy violent movies (see my original post for why this is false).

I'm extraordinarily pissed off at the ignorance. I'm far from being a liberal, but also far from being a conservative. I sincerely hope this is the end of this.

That's what you get for going to Fox's website >_>

 

[Am]

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.

Pretty much agree with you fully. I'm Canadian but living in the States; when I first learned about this proposed law I didn't understand why it was a big deal. I had no idea movie ratings weren't government-enforced in this country before that. Basically all rating systems are voluntary in the US; it's the companies that sell the products that enforce them.

Really, it comes down to whether you think the government is better at preventing these sales (fear of fines/imprisonment) or the companies themselves are (fear of being demoted/fired). Personally I think the government would do a better job and would hope that all media (not just video games, I agree with the judges that singling out video games is stupid) would be legally restricted, but most Yanks disagree; it's just a different culture here. They prefer the government to stay out of their business.

 

[Jordi]

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

Not if a store itself wants to get sued no. This was to try and prevent it at a more invasive (drug dealing if you ask me) level, if you were caught re-selling it to a minor for example you would get fined.

The ratings are now still in the same bandwagon as movies.
If it's got a sticker with a rating on it, it's recommended to stick to it but in the end it is entirely up to the discretion of the user/users guardian as it should be.

The long term effect it would have had on the video game industry would have been overly catastrophic.

I'm not an American citizen, so I don't know anything about this. But how can a store get sued if it's doing something that is not illegal?

 

[CM156_v1legacy]

I still don't get why this is good news. I mean, to me it makes sense to not allow minors to buy violent videogames. Here in Britain BBFC classifications are legally enforceable, which means minors who want violent games need ID to prove their age, or have an adult buy it for them.

I see no problem with prohibiting kids buying violent videogames, so someone explain to me why this decision is such a good thing please.

I think it has something to do with the fact that we aren't preventing minors from buying M rated games (Which I could do when I was one, 17), but "violent" ones. That's a vague term. At least that is my understanding.

 

[SniperMacFox]

I find it ironic that the guy used "Dante's Divine Comedy" as an example for good literature when the video game was such a glaring example to what the bill was against ;P

Other than that, it's nice to know that videogames are an art and protected by the constitution. Thank you, America!

 

[freakonaleash]

Of course Thomas dissented, he ALWAYS dissents...he is such an idiot...

 

[Zeraki]

This is definitely good news. I do believe I hear a song coming on!

[youtube=QEmbOL3AAEs&feature=related

 

[fierydemise]

I still don't get why this is good news. I mean, to me it makes sense to not allow minors to buy violent videogames. Here in Britain BBFC classifications are legally enforceable, which means minors who want violent games need ID to prove their age, or have an adult buy it for them.

I see no problem with prohibiting kids buying violent videogames, so someone explain to me why this decision is such a good thing please.

In a nut shell because this ruling would have placed video games under scrutiny that didn't apply to other forms of media. Additionally the way this law was written would have made the claim that video games were being placed in this special category because they are uniquely obscene without significant in-obscene merit.

You can be for keeping violent video games out of the hands of minors by trying to increase compliance with ESRB ratings but this regulation had it stood would have been very bad news.

 

[Diegolomac]

HUZZAH!!

Also, why do I have the feeling that Fox News is going to troll about this?