[Tzqowwyt]

That's an irrelevant argument. Seriously, that has absolutely nothing to do with the issue being argued. Why did you post that?

Because the law is, ostensibly, to keep children from buying violent video games. Except something like half (there is a study on this, I can try and dig it up if you want) of violent video game sales where the recipient is a young child are done by parents.

If parents don't want their kids playing violent video games, they need to be educated about the games rather than just buy whatever and then bitch that the state isn't doing something that is their responsibility if it's their concern.

[corsar-caribean]

You are evading the points of the argument so this is useless.

Fine. Government has no role or should play no role in what minors can and can't do. That job is for the parent regardless of what the law is for. It's ALL about this and you know it. The only reason these laws even exist is because of the lack of responsibility on the part of parents, end of story. These laws only serve to undermine our liberties. This much should be obvious to you as well. Try not to be so thick about it.

[bitymnmictada]

So minors should be allowed to purchase R rated movies as well?

The ratings code is a voluntary code established by industry as it relates to who may attend a theatrical viewing of a film, it does not relate to ownership of the film or private viewings of the film. Minors with parental permission should be allowed to purchase an R rated film. A business is sensibly bound by refusing to sell R rated films to minors as they can't universally confirm parental permission there is no need for governmental oversight and the business does not need to face a legal penalty for failing to confirm to customers personal standards.

The same standards should be held to video games.

[yK2VgoEI]

Because the law is, ostensibly, to keep children from buying violent video games. Except something like half (there is a study on this, I can try and dig it up if you want) of violent video game sales where the recipient is a young child are done by parents.

If parents don't want their kids playing violent video games, they need to be educated about the games rather than just buy whatever and then bitch that the state isn't doing something that is their responsibility if it's their concern.

In my area, kids can't buy the games but they sure play them so it must be the parents buying them. And you're right, the parents should educate themselves before buying them instead of expecting the government to act as the nanny.

[CatLuvkaLover]

More in the link.

California law to ban violent video games ruled out by Supreme Court -- PlayStation Universe

Now, this is what I'm talking about. I think this sets a very powerful precedent in regards to videogames and our 1st Amendment rights as American citizens. I completely agree with the decision though it makes one wonder, who were the 2 dissenting votes?

In the grand scheme of things I was happy with the decision. Time to put the parents back in charge of being parents, instead of looking to nanny government to do so for them.

[eskimosik]

Yes. However, I believe the decision made kinda forces the issue and places the responsibility on the parents.

Well, God forbid we expect parents to engage in, you know... parenting...

[corsar-caribean]

Well, God forbid we expect parents to engage in, you know... parenting...

Hm. Maybe I came off wrong there. Believe me, I was absolutely thrilled at the decision and I'm absolutely thrilled the issue was forced. It's time parents started parenting instead of relying on government.

I hope this clarifies my position.

[wMceqj7F]

Fine. Government has no role or should play no role in what minors can and can't do. That job is for the parent regardless of what the law is for. It's ALL about this and you know it. The only reason these laws even exist is because of the lack of responsibility on the part of parents, end of story. These laws only serve to undermine our liberties. This much should be obvious to you as well. Try not to be so thick about it.

First, the government is you and me. Second, this isn't about what minors can and can't do, it's about what businesses can sell to them. In any case, we would clearly disagree even if we could somehow agree on what we are arguing about.

[wMceqj7F]

The ratings code is a voluntary code established by industry as it relates to who may attend a theatrical viewing of a film, it does not relate to ownership of the film or private viewings of the film. Minors with parental permission should be allowed to purchase an R rated film. A business is sensibly bound by refusing to sell R rated films to minors as they can't universally confirm parental permission there is no need for governmental oversight and the business does not need to face a legal penalty for failing to confirm to customers personal standards.

The same standards should be held to video games.

The people of California obviously felt that the video game stores were not consistently applying that voluntary guideline, and they put a law around it. The Supreme Court had no business striking the law down. There is not freedom of speech issue. Nobody is stopping the game companies from making the games. Where in that clause does it say that you have the right to sell inappropriate content to minors? Nowhere. You all are making this an argument about parenting, when it's really about an over reaching Supreme Court.

[Ruilnasr]

Government shouldn't be deciding what games our children play. That's the job of the parents.

If the government wants to have a say in every parenting aspect of my child then they can split the cost of raising her and send me a freakin check. Other than that they can back the f*** off and let me decide the best course of action as a parent.

[bitymnmictada]

The people of California obviously felt that the video game stores were not consistently applying that voluntary guideline, and they put a law around it. The Supreme Court had no business striking the law down.

Sure they did, it would have never gotten to them if they had no jurisdiction.

There is not freedom of speech issue. Nobody is stopping the game companies from making the games. Where in that clause does it say that you have the right to sell inappropriate content to minors? Nowhere. You all are making this an argument about parenting, when it's really about an over reaching Supreme Court. The supreme court says the existing nationwide, industry-imposed, voluntary rating system is an adequate screen for parents to judge the appropriateness of computer game content. I say a law that said my child can't buy what I authorized they may purchase is over reaching my rights as a parent.

A state imposed limit would impinge free speech as all video and computer games are not commercially distributed so it isn't strictly a limit of commerce but in speech as part of expression.

[Talicoabilk]

I have to disagree. The law does not prevent the gaming companies from making the product, which is the free speech issue, it merely provides an age limit.

[corsar-caribean]

I have to disagree. The law does not prevent the gaming companies from making the product, which is the free speech issue, it merely provides an age limit.

It puts a limit on the selling of such products. That in itself, is not only a violation of the 1st Amendment, it's a violation of commerce laws. It's also extortion.

[bitymnmictada]

I have to disagree. The law does not prevent the gaming companies from making the product, which is the free speech issue, it merely provides an age limit.

One needn't be a company to make a video game. What's the age limit for making video games?

[mudozvonf]

Because the law is, ostensibly, to keep children from buying violent video games. Except something like half (there is a study on this, I can try and dig it up if you want) of violent video game sales where the recipient is a young child are done by parents.

If parents don't want their kids playing violent video games, they need to be educated about the games rather than just buy whatever and then bitch that the state isn't doing something that is their responsibility if it's their concern.

Agreed. What people view is not the business of the state to decide.

[yK2VgoEI]

It puts a limit on the selling of such products. That in itself, is not only a violation of the 1st Amendment, it's a violation of commerce laws. It's also extortion.

A minor can't go into Wal-Mart and buy an R-rated movie nor can they buy porn, can they? While I agree that parents should be parents, what is the difference between not selling games and not selling movies to minors?

[OWV9LSxH]

A minor can't go into Wal-Mart and buy an R-rated movie nor can they buy porn, can they? While I agree that parents should be parents, what is the difference between not selling games and not selling movies to minors?

As I understand it, the Supreme Court struck down a law requiring that stores cannot sell M-Rated games to minors. It doesn't mean that stores can't still have a company policy to not sell adult material to minors.

[Doctor-CTAC]

I have a four-year-old boy.

One of our favorite things to do together is play some video games.

Since he's a little guy and doesn't have the manual dexterity necessary for games that require hand-held controllers so we're stuck playing Kung Fu Panda on the XBox (Kinetix) and things like that.

We're all about kicking the shit out of some Komodo Dragons.

When he gets a little bigger and is able, I'll have no problem with him playing COD or MOH with me.

He's real big in to Super Heros now too - loves watching Young Justice kick some bad guy ass.

Frequently he'll sneak up on me, punch my in the belly, get into his little fighting stance, and proclaim, "Letsssssssss FIGHT!"

Now, based on the near hysteria surrounding "violent video games" you'd think that the kid would be one step away from mass murder.

But nothing could be further from the truth.

Whenever he's with my wife, her parents, or my parents he's as good as gold and has never even suggested violent play.

When he's at school he's as good as gold. He's only gotten in one "fight" and that was more a slapping match because another boy took a toy from two little girls, made them cry, and wouldn't give it back, so my boy went and took the toy back, gave it to the girls, and then fought off the kid when he came back to take it again.

In the next year or so I plan on getting him involved in matrial arts or some kind of MMA training. He has water pistols, toy soldiers, and a sling shot.

Toys and play, even violent toys and play, don't make kids "violent".

Not having proper direction, boundaries, and limits makes kids violent, or rather, not providing direction, boundaries, and limits for your children prevents them from being properly acculturated with society's expectation that the perfectly natural instinct to react violently/aggressively needs to be repressed except under very particular circumstances.

The government, vis a vis regulation, can withhold (in a sense) some negative stimuli but it can't provide the positive stimuli that's going to make the difference between a kid growing up right and a kid growing up to be a terror.

[Talicoabilk]

Not having proper direction, boundaries, and limits makes kids violent, or rather, not providing direction, boundaries, and limits for your children prevents them from being properly acculturated with society's expectation that the perfectly natural instinct to react violently/aggressively needs to be repressed except under very particular circumstances.

The government, vis a vis regulation, can withhold (in a sense) some negative stimuli but it can't provide the positive stimuli that's going to make the difference between a kid growing up right and a kid growing up to be a terror.

You know way back when nobody ever restrict us from watching Popeye where someone got the shit kicked out of them every episode or, for that matter, The Road Runner, where Wiley E. Coyote got blown up, run over and smashed to bits every episode.

Nor did anyone think to restrict us from watching westerns...hell, the most popular and longest running TV show ever, Gunsmoke opened with the killing of a guy in a duel.

And it was our generation who set out to stop a war....now, since all this concern of the effect of media violence on children, we have five wars going on and no one gives a shit....




Go figure

[himecthekWiff]

Let's assume that the parent isn't there, and this is that rarest of minors who goes against the rules of the house when they can get away with it. You are saying that it's up to the policy of the seller?

I don't see a problem with it. Is there something inherently harmful about R-rated movies that is not present in movies not rated R?