• Welcome to the PopMalt Forums! Whether you're new to forums or a veteran, welcome to our humble home on the web! We're a 20-year old forum community with thousands of discussions on entertainment, lifestyle, leisure, and more.

    Our rules are simple. Be nice and don't spam. Registration is free, so what are you waiting for? Join today!.

SCOTUS: Video game ban unconstitutional

Babe_Ruth

Sultan of Swat
Staff member
V.I.P.
A 7-2 vote throws out California's law prohibiting sales of violent video games to children:

Court overturns ban on video game sales to kids - Yahoo! News

Not really surprised about this outcome really, glad that that the results were that lopsided.
 
Last edited:

CaptainObvious

Embrace the Suck
V.I.P.
I reluctantly agree with the opinions of Justices Breyer and Thomas in this issue. While I do not think there is an appreciable causal connection between violence on a game and violence in society 1) I do think the state has the right to restrict pornography to children 2) Freedom of Speech does not extend through minors without going through their parents or guardians and 3) this was passed by the state legislature, the democratically elected "vioce of the people". Since the people spoke in enacting this law, to overthrow it would mean the statute should unequivically violate the Constitution. I don't find that here.
 

Unity

Living in Ikoria
Staff member
I agree with the ruling; to me it's just one of those issues of freedom of speech and knowledge just being out there in the U.S. I understand video game rating systems being in place, and this is one of those issues (along with books, movies, etc.) in which I think that some government intervention with ratings is fine, but that parents are responsible for making the call.

I also think that in the case of violent media there's been no conclusive proof that it actually has a bad effect on peoples' demeanor. There were violent people before any of this. I've been playing violent games since I was a kid, and I'm Mr. Peace over here.

I also laughed at this quote from the article:

"What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting the sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?" Breyer said. "What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman — bound, gagged, tortured and killed — is also topless?"
Was he just making this up? Because as a gamer myself, I've never heard of this bound, gagged, tortured and killed game.
 

sunrise

aka ginger warlock
V.I.P.
I am very confused by this I won't deny it. Why is this even coming to light? If I am understanding this correctly they are saying they see constitutionally people have the right to be buying these games even if they are minors yet they will not be allowed because of the age restrictions that are already in place :confused:
 

shelgarr

Registered Member
Whether it be porn or video games, ultimately it's the parent that decides. If it's not allowed then that is that.

My son averts his eyes when boobs or sex comes on tv. It embarrasses him. Yet, he is aware all this is out there. Eventually he'll become very interested, I'm sure. Despite his age, he'll probably find access to pictures if he really wants to. Of course, as his mom, I'll always discourage it because that is my responsibility.

The most violent game my son has played is Grand Theft Auto and he specifically ("for fun") killed the police. Otherwise he plays Call of Duty (also considered violent) or Halo. As his parent, I allowed these games even with the warning "M" or "T". He doesn't have a propensity for confrontation or fighting or disrespect of teachers or adults. Although he loves military history, weapondry, and guns.
 

icegoat63

Son of Liberty
V.I.P.
Was he just making this up? Because as a gamer myself, I've never heard of this bound, gagged, tortured and killed game.
He was just making it up. He's a know-nothing about the gaming industry and will feed off other know-Nothings by spreading lies and twisted truths about games in order to demonize them.

again... a Know-Nothing on the situation speaking out of turn;

"It's disappointing the court didn't understand just how violent these games are," Yee told The AP.
its disappointing that every Screening of the Saw movies were full of children without a doubt under the age of 17 and the Saw movies are without a doubt more gory than the vast majority of all video games that I'm aware of. For every Gory Video Game you can name... there are dozens of hollywood movies to counter them with.

Video Games should be regulated like Movies if there is to be any regulation at all.

I agree strongly with what this guy said;

"There now can be no argument whether video games are entitled to the same protection as books, movies, music, and other expressive entertainment,"
Video games are nothing more than an entertainment medium.

Also as a Gamer... I had to laugh at this Paragraph;

That means that children would have needed an adult to get games like "Postal 2," the first-person shooter by developer Running With Scissors that features the ability to light unarmed bystanders on fire. It would also apply to the popular "Grand Theft Auto IV," a third-person shoot-'em-up from Rockstar Games that allows gamers to portray carjacking, gun-toting gangsters.
Postal 2 and Grand Theft Auto.... "Shoot 'em up" games? Last I checked they were Sandbox games that allowed you to decide whether or not you should or should not lite innocent pedestrians on fire. If little Johnny is driving his car on the Sidewalk with an Uzi blazing out the passenger window... its because little Johnny is fucked in the head, not because the Game is telling him to. Maybe thats when the parents should step in and say "wow really? wtf is wrong with you?"
 
Last edited:

Nevyrmoore

AKA Ass-Bandit
I am very confused by this I won't deny it. Why is this even coming to light? If I am understanding this correctly they are saying they see constitutionally people have the right to be buying these games even if they are minors yet they will not be allowed because of the age restrictions that are already in place :confused:
Right, age ratings in America work differently than ours, in that, with the exception of pornography, there is no actual law saying that a company is not allowed to sell someone underage certain entertainment goods. In effect, a company can legally sell a 5 year old Dawn of the Dead. The age ratings are all voluntary, and not put on there by law. What prevents a 5 year old from buying Dawn of the Dead, however, is the company abiding by these voluntary ratings.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with this system, and prefer our system. But in this case, I have to defer to the American system, as if this law went ahead, it would apparently cause a hell of a lot of problems for the video game market in America. And considering that the VG market in America is large, this would effect a large number of games that would be created.
 

sunrise

aka ginger warlock
V.I.P.
Right, age ratings in America work differently than ours, in that, with the exception of pornography, there is no actual law saying that a company is not allowed to sell someone underage certain entertainment goods. In effect, a company can legally sell a 5 year old Dawn of the Dead. The age ratings are all voluntary, and not put on there by law. What prevents a 5 year old from buying Dawn of the Dead, however, is the company abiding by these voluntary ratings.

Now, I don't necessarily agree with this system, and prefer our system. But in this case, I have to defer to the American system, as if this law went ahead, it would apparently cause a hell of a lot of problems for the video game market in America. And considering that the VG market in America is large, this would effect a large number of games that would be created.
:stare:

I am genuinely amazed by this (though having seen "This Films Is Not Yet Rated" I am not sure why), I guess with having the BBFC in place for so long I am just used to or working like that elsewhere or assuming it would... many thanks for the reason though Storm
 
Top