Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Violent Video Game Restriction Struck Down

Posted by michael on from the GTA-shipments-resume dept.

Nutsquasher was the first to submit news that a ban on selling violent video games to minors has been struck down, reversing an earlier decision in this case that held that video games were not a constitutionally protected form of speech. The decision (pdf) is available. Since the Federal government has been considering a national law along these lines, these decisions on local laws may be important soon.

9 of 318 comments (clear)

  1. Re:Excellent by aiyo · · Score: 4, Informative

    There is an ESRB rating system in place for several years to keep those kinds of games out o the hands of minors.

  2. It didn't work, anyways by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    I live in Crestwood, MO, which is in Saint Louis County. I go to Best Buy to buy games rather often. Never once have I been questioned about my age when trying to buy a game, whether it be violent or not. And I'm 16 years old. It's possible to enforce this law (they've managed to enforce checking IDs when buying alcoholic beverages) but nobody really tries to do so.

  3. Pre-emptive strike by fahrvergnugen · · Score: 5, Informative

    Before Yet Another Moron gets on here and starts ranting about how it works for the movies, why not for the games, won't someone PLEASE think of the children:

    The MPAA ratings are voluntary and are not enforced under penalty of law. There is nothing about them at all that is legally binding. The only pressure theater operators face to enforce them is economic, not criminal. This is arguably what makes them constitutional, where this law is not. IANAL etc.

    --
    Even Jesus hates listening to Creed.
  4. Vice City by shaklee · · Score: 1, Informative

    While I agree with the court's decision to turn down this ban, after playing the game vice city on the computer, it is obvious that kids should not play this. There is sex, lots of violence, drugs, etc, depicted in a very graphical way. Whether the parents do it or not, this game is much too explicit for the younger generations.

  5. Re:How is this different from porn? by Segod · · Score: 2, Informative

    There are laws that have to do with obscenity in most states. An interactive porno would still be considered to be obscene and would still be restricted under different laws

  6. Another article by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    You can read more about this court decision here.

  7. Re:original judge by Noren · · Score: 4, Informative
    It is true that there exists a Judge Stephen Limbaugh (Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Jr.) who is the famous Rush Limbaugh's (Rush H. Limbaugh III) first cousin.

    However, the person referred to by the OP who rejected that request is Judge Stephen N. Limbaugh, Sr.- his uncle .

  8. Re:!st Amendment seems beside the point by OMEGA+Power · · Score: 2, Informative
    An NC-17 film is protected free speech. But a minor can't walk in and see that. That's because a minor doesn't share the basic rights of an adult in the US, but instead needs parental consent to obtain these rights

    Actually, it is because the NC-17 (and the movie ratting system as a whole) is a voluntery policy adapted by the MPAA and NATO (National Association of Theater Owners.) It is not a law and the government is in no way involved in it's enforcment and in fact producers and theaters are free to ignore it if they see fit (e.g. unrated films, the fact that the R ratting is rarely, if ever enforced) with no penalty

  9. Mothers Against Videogame Addiction and Violence by DooBall · · Score: 2, Informative

    MAVAV.org Let's stop videogame addiction and violence today!