Slashdot Mirror
Judge Blocks Ban on Violent Video Game Sales
dada21 writes "SFGate is reporting that a federal judge recently blocked a new California law that would have banned the sale of violent video games to minors. From the article: 'Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had signed the bill by Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, to ban the sale or rental of especially violent video games to children under 18 years old unless there is parental approval. The law was to take effect Jan. 1.'"
" From the article: 'Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had signed the bill by Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, to ban the sale or rental of especially violent video games to children under 18 years old unless there is parental approval. The law was to take effect Jan. 1.'""
In other words. Parents should be responsable for their kids. So were's the problem again?
Maybe they should stop trying to censor what children can purchase and just create a law banning the sale of video games, marked rated M or Adult, from being sold.
More importantly, parents need to know what kind of games their children are playing, and there is nothing the government can legislate to do about it. (I'm in my 20s, and I can say, there are some games I see on t.v. that are so sickening, and am I correct to say that the U.S. army actually helped make it or am I mistaken?
But sales of Arnie movies to minors will never be contested. Everyone should be able to watch Predator.
ender-iii
And we know those laws are working effectively.
Arnold Schwarzenegger is annoyed because of his films sales are proportionally inversed to violent videogame sales.
Well,If 'kids' are'nt allowed to buy a particular game due to age restrictions,what stops them from downloading from p2p/bittorrent?
Why does yahoo do this
Well, they're actually supposed to interpret the constitution as it is. A federal judge interprets the federal constitution, and a state judge does the same for the state constitution. In this case, the judge found the law to be unconstitutional. Is it really that simple? Judges can block laws all they want. If their only job was to 'uphold the law' then there would all of a sudden be no debate about the patriot act etc. etc. ad nauseam. The judiciary would become little more than a rubber stamp for congress and the president.
This is about deterring the production of said games. If they can't be bought by minors, then they will be pirated. This destroys the revenue stream, making it unprofitable to make such games.
Evil, huh? This is the premise of much of the censorship we see today, controlling speech through the 'think about the children!' impulse.
HBI's Law: Frequency of calling others Nazis is directly correlated with the likelihood of the accuser being Communist.
...allowing the sale of violent games, Arnold decided to have a few words with the judge
"Well,If 'kids' are'nt allowed to buy a particular game due to age restrictions,what stops them from downloading from p2p/bittorrent?"
How's that question any different for all the other things kids try to do, that parents forbid? Society can only do so much. Parents can only do so much. After that point it's cause and effect, and you just hope that the cause isn't something that'll harm them.
In the movie xXx -- : "DICK!!! thats the only education we have got."
Why are we trying to regulate the sale of video games through law? If a kid is too young to buy a game, his PARENTS should be the one stopping him. If the parents don't notice a kid coming home and gleefully killing virtual hookers in his free time, then there's a bigger problem than "The store didn't enforce the age limit on this awfully violent videogame!"
Vandemar.org
Well it's never been a judges job to uphold the law, just interpret it. If they couldn't even do that then there wouldn't be much point in having a judiciary would there?
I know everyone around here is probably feeling elated and self-righteous, but I think it's more than we can expect, really, in this situation with video games. Think of the culture of the past and backlash there - Booze, Jazz, Rock & Roll, etc... We're getting it pretty good.
To put another spin on it, arnold would be accepting a ban on something that he personally profits for. From a business standpoint, the ban doesn't make sense for him either. I don't mean to imply that this is his guiding reason, or even a factor, but it's one way to look at it.
~Ruff_ilb
http://www.TheGamerNation.com/Forums
This law really is going about things the wrong way. If the sale of video games to minors is going to get restricted the ESRB needs to be given an actual meaning in law or as a regulatory agency.
An ESRB with teeth is not what is needed though. Restricting sales to minors won't stop them from getting what they want, it will just reduce the official sales numbers while the kids who do get their parents to get the game copy the game for their less fortunate freinds. The net effect wont be increased parently responsibility so much as it will be a rise in piracy. As the games become more unobtainable, they become more desireable to minors, and then even kids who would not have wanted the game on its merits alone will want it because they cannot have it. Situation sound like some other heavily legislated 'goods'? This is definitely not a new situation we have on our hands.
Of course the proper solution is increased parental responsibility. If the state or nation were to mandate, say, a class on parental responsibilty, parenting, licenses, or anything like that there would be riots in the streets.
It would be nice if people started noticing a pattern about social legislation. It is ineffective and nobody likes it. The only way this issue will be solved is if parents start thinking about the problem for themselves and maybe pay attention to their kids once and a while; but I don't see that happening anytime soon, do you?
"We don't allow kids to buy cigarettes or alcohol or look at pornography," he said. "There are already situations in which we as society have said we have to protect kids by limiting what they can do."
Cigarettes and alcohol don't involve speech or expression.
And as far as pornography, it may be true that Mr. Yee doesn't let his kids look at it. But that's not the constitutinal standard. The Supreme Court has already overruled the Communications Decency Act, which required adult websites to verify age before displaying any "pornographic" content.
Typical legislative mentality. Ignore the constitution... just do what makes you look good and let the courts sort it out.
"Out of curiousity, how do you feel about the RIAA suing the parents of kids that have downloaded music for free?"
...$10,000? WTF?"
When I was young I shot out a neighbour's window with a BB gun. Guess who paid for that window? Yup, my parents. Parental responsability is exactly that. Does it really matter if it's music instead of windows? As for your "other" question. That's why we have a court system.
[Deathbane27]
"Problem one: This bill allowed for the determination of whether the game is "too violent" to take place AFTER the sale. Rated T for Teen? Sure, I'll sell this to a 17-year-old.
I have two children. For one of them there was a question about the sutability of a movie. She pointed out the video to me, and I watched the video "alone" to see if it was OK (it was). The rating (and this law) would have beeen irrelevent to me because I made the decision, not the courts or anyone else. Basically this law is saying "go ask your parents".
"Problem two: Remind me why we don't fine people for selling violent books, movies, magazines, newspapers, music, etc. to minors. If we're going to restrict free speech we need to restrict all forms of it."
These laws are state and municipality laws. Some places do. I much prefer that it remain that way, so that if I don't like the circumstances a given set of laws generate. I can move elsewere. That would be much harder if it were federal laws.
The judge offerred his retort.
Gee, what would California, the home of the current movie/music industry, have against the new-coming rapidly expanding gaming industry?
What sorts of fines are retailers currently assessed for sale of rated R movies, CDs with "explicit lyrics", pornography, and other adult material to minors?
The bottom line is that parents should be the ones regulating what their children are doing. If you don't know what games your child is playing, what music they are listening to, or magazines they are buying, then you need to get more involved with their lives.
Stop blaming retailers, game companies, cable tv, and generally everyone else. Do you job as a parent, discuss with your children why the material is unsuitable for them. Heck, buy it and interact with them.
"The more you suffer, the more it shows you really care, right?" -Offspring
...no State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges and immunities of the citizens of the United States --U.S. Constitution amendment XIV
;)
The states cannot take away rights that originate from citizenship.
Now I'm about to be corrected by someone who really knows what they're talking about
Shh.
from what ive seen, there is a big difference between movies and video games. in movies (well.. the rated R and higher ones) you are watching actual people and it seems like it's happening, even if reality is a bit skewed. as for video games, they are very unlife-like as well hyperbolize to a rediculous level. an example is a movie that came out called High Tension which was quite gory and realistic to the point where my 28-year-old brother almost barfed on me. however, we play a bunch of violent videogames including the mortal kombat series of games. now, when i impale his character with a giant sword and blood is spirting everywhere, he does not get that sickening feeling. so there is a clear divide between the two... oh no here comes multiply!
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.
Wow, these activist judges sure are . . . er . . . active.
The very same judge made a very similar ruling only two days ago!
[Ramones]Dupe, dupe, dupe, dupe & roll highschool[/Ramones]
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
... otherwise, this law would have burst into hellish flames of contradiction when signed by the lead in Conan, Commando, Eraser, Predator, Red Heat, Running Man, Terminator 1/2/3, Total Recall, True Lies and (Not) The Last Action Hero.
--- Attorneys Assisting Citizen-Soldiers & Families -
Every time I see an ad campaign that is clearly and obviously (to anyone with half a brain cell or more) going to have the exact opposite effect to the one intended, I seriously wonder how mankind managed to get so far yet remain so woefully and obnoxiously stupid.
I do believe that laws that restrict smoking, porn, violent games, etc, can be made to work, work well, and work in a way that can near-universally be agreed upon as good, sensible and mature, even by the most anti-legislative, pure-blooded libertarians out there. I also believe such laws won't come from backroom deals, religious viewpoints and righteous rage. They are far more likely to come from rational and open discussions.
This law on violent games, for example, was brokered by politicians FOR politicians. The judge noted that no correlation between violence and games had been proven. Why could Californian legislators not wheel out neurologists with fMRI studies that could prove a unquestionable cause-and-effect on the mechanical level? Why could they not produce child psychologists who could produce solid, verifiable, repeatable evidence of a correlation on the behavioral level? If they'd done that, what objection could have been raised to there being some response?
They didn't, for an obvious reason. They never talked to any. They never had any data to work from, so had no data to present.
Ok, assuming we now have data that a response is required, we would now have to determine what kind of response is needed. The only people who can tell you what computers can do would be computer experts. The only people who can tell you what businesses can do would be business experts. For parents, you probably want to talk to a mix of parents and sociologists.
They didn't do any of that, either.
Once you've all that information to hand, you can distill it into a law that has a clear, firm, rational foundation that has unquestionable merit in dealing with a provable and proven problem, in a manner most likely to produce a verifiable and socially beneficial response.
Ah, well, rational legislation seems to be way beyond what we have come to expect from government. A pity, as they have no excuse whatsoever in producing anything else.
This assumes legislation is needed at all, of course. If the neurologists cannot show a mechanism AND the child psychologists cannot show that said mechanism produces an actual, verifiable response that is adverse and mentally toxic, and which cannot be avoided by changing some other parameter, then there's nothing for a law to do.
(You have to have both. Just showing a mechanism isn't enough, if the mechanism can be trivially ignored by most people. Even the response is not enough, if you cannot prove beyond all reasonable doubt what triggers it, OR if there were some other change - better education, for example - that could do the job better and more universally.)
The ONLY valid legislation would be IF the science justified legislation in the first place AND the legislation honored what the science defined as being the REAL problem, AND the legislation honored what the experts said society could reasonably respond to, AND the legislation honored what the Constitution defined as being the place of legislation, no matter what the data might say.
If all those conditions had been respected and met, I seriously doubt anybody would have had
It's a small world and it smells funny; I'd buy another if it wasn't for the money; Take back what I paid (SoM)
Go into a gamestop or electronics boutique. I used to work there. They card everyone they believe under 17. If the person is under 17, product IS NOT SOLD. I have seen this policy enforced at every EB and Gamestop I have ever shopped at. Why do activist groups and the government continue to dwell on what is most assuredly a dead issue? Do you know who is buying the kids the games? The parents. Every time I would read off the M rated label they would go in the car and get their parents. I would explain to the parents what the game was, but they would never listen. "Everybody" has one so my Johnny MUST have one to fit in.
Actually, many people think this, but they are mistaken because they're leaving out an important part of the legal system.
Judges need to pay attention not only to the constitution, but also need to carefully consider precendent. This is the part that most people don't realize, and why they get confused when rulings happen that seem contray to how they understand the Constitution or particular laws. The Constitution and the laws of the land are only the beginning of the US legal system, it's the judges that interpret the laws and establish precedents which, later, are followed by other judges in other interpretations and rulings down the road.
This is why Chief Justice Roberts, for example, says he personally doesn't think that abortion should be legal (or some variety on "Roe vs Wade was decided wrong), but considers it to be settled law, and he would need some sort of extraordinary circumstance to occur for him to vote to overturn RvW. It's the principle of "stare decisis", and you can read more at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stare_decisis
There are, indeed, people who don't believe that stare decisis should be as predominant as it is, but they seem to be in the minority. Stare decisis isn't a new legal concept dreamt up in the last decade or two, though. It's been around a long time.
"Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger had signed the bill by Assemblyman Leland Yee, D-San Francisco, to ban the sale or rental of especially violent video games"
Would that include The Terminator Game, out of interest?
Well, I suppose at least if it eventually goes to the supreme court, we wont have to hear bout this bs anymore after they make a decision, most likely the same that the California court decided...
So the judge doesn't think I have a right to decide what my child has access to?
Tell you what, your honorless, why don't you drag your sorry ass over here and take care of my teenage daughter since you have denied me a simple ability I might need as a parent. I may not ever need that tool, but I damn well think it should be my right to decide, not yours. However, since you have decided you know best how to take care of her, enjoy the job.
Before anyone flames me, I doubt there are any games I would not let her rent, but it's still my damn decision.
-- Will program for bandwidth
Great post! I think the heavy reliance on precedent in the U.S. legal system is one of the things that confuses many European observers, who are used to a system based on the Napoleanic Code.
It's not offtopic, dumbass. It's orthogonal.
Well if i cant get a daily dose of violence from games im goner have to join a gang or something.
bloods 4 life
west side
I am 14 and have been exposed to many things nanny politicians would oppose.
I am, like, so corrupted.
I am HE, and you are ME, and WE are all together.
(I am) The Walrus
Great post! I think the heavy reliance on precedent in the U.S. legal system is one of the things that confuses many European observers, who are used to a system based on the Napoleanic Code.
;-)
I often wonder where comments like these come from. I happen to live in The Netherlands, which isn't a "common law" country, and which was succesfully invaded by Napoleon, who then established codified civil law. The big deal about the Napoleonic code wasn't that it superceded all precedent, but rather that it harmonized laws. within the entire Napoleonic empire, the rules for establishing contracts, sales, etc. would henceforth be uniform. Subsequent penal codes also decriminalized certain acts by excluding them as offenses. However, this doesn't in the slightest way diminish the role of the judiciary to interpret laws in a manner consistent with expectation; where such expectation is established by rulings of other courts (precedent) as well as custom (much like common law) and even the de facto status quo.
For example, I build a home in some zone where building laws prohibit it, but the authorities tolerate it for the time being; if this goes on for ages (well, 5 years), and then suddenly they decide to enforce building laws, I can claim that the law is rendered void by non-practice. This entire construct has no basis in codified law, but is a rule that comes entirely from precedent and the base principles of law according to which codified laws are interpreted (just&reasonable etc.). In essence, the Law is what the Court decides it is, not what happens to be written down on a piece of paper. Especially in civil cases judges often deviate from codified law and written contract in the interest of fairness and reason. For example, there's nothing explicitely codified to prohibit a contract from containing a clause that requires you to sign over your firstborn's soul to Satan, however it is quite likely a court would find such a clause to be null and void.
The Netherlands also has a Supreme court (and intermediate courts of appeal) whose decisions are strong precedent to lower courts. And in general, all EU member states (even the UK with their silly Law Lords) defer ultimate judicial jurisdiction in matters concerning Human and Civil rights to the European High Court; which establishes binding precedent.
In EU guidelines (and Dutch laws) you'll even find places where precedent is later incorporated in law, or even clauses that explicitely reference "local custom". (For example; terms&conditions of sale have to be either put in writing at the time of sale, be available from the courthouse, or be according to local custom - so if you sell a pig at the local market, and the custom is to be paid in cash, without any written contract/T&Cs or codified law, you can demand cash).
So really, are there so many differences between countries with a Napoleonic code and those with common law? Both have courts of recourse, precedent, a judiciary interpreting the code according to custom. Probably "common law" is only made such a big deal of, because judges who have to deal with juries deciding the actual case in criminal procedings just need to feel a bit more important.
SCO employee? Check out the bounty
When T2 the arcade game came out way back when, arnold took some flak for it as there are scenes in the game where you shoot cops which were scanned in photos a la mortal kombat. And I can't remember his exact lines but he defended the game saying it stayed in line with the film as shooting the cops were for the greater good going with the story line.
Now, if he can only ban dupes...
You people are quite crazy. Why in the world would you allow teens to have access to pronography or alcohol. It is absolutely nuts. If you are worried sbout your individual children's access to violent video games, pornography, tobacco, etc ... THEN ... you can go but that stuff for your child and give it to them.
As a rule though, the community should not sell those things to children.
It is just absolutlely silly to suggest that because some kids can buy tobacco or alcohol or attend Rated "R" or "X" movies in some (illegal) locations that we should just get rid of those laws. Poppycock
It is also silly to suggest that children have full freedom of speech OR should have ability to view other people freedom of speech. Childern are not adults ... they are children. For goodness sakes people.
Passing community laws that prevent selling items to children and things like the v-chip that help block negative content, and other things are our responibility as adult to protect children.
Children need protecting ... and they need good parenting ... AND ... good parents need help in the way of community laws to prevent selling items to children, that provide software for filtering internet content, and that provide items like the v-chip for blocking movies.
Certainly, not selling "R" or "X" rated movies to kids is a good idea as a general rule. You can then rent that movie and allow your children to watch it, if you deem it wise. The only argument then becomes one of Freedom of speech / expression and freedom of actions. Children are not wise enough to fend for themselves and they need parents ... so they don't have those freedoms.
If the legislation did get enacted, what would the scenario be if a minor decided to write a violent video game? Ooooh, idea, parent lock on photoshop to stop kids drawing violent pictures. Now that'd be progress! "There's too much red in this picture, and it will be deleted."
What I don't understand is how a judge can be allowed the power to block the will of democratically elected representatives on such a minor issue. When did judges get to decide what laws they like and don't like just by claiming an obviously spurious constitutional connection?
TWW
"Encyclopedia" is to "Wikipedia" what "Library" is to "Some people at a bus stop"
Now I think the MPAA system is technically voluntary, but it would seem to have pretty much the same effect as European rating systems which are mostly enshrined in the law.
If this was a general ban or censorship, I would completely agree. However I really don't get the problem with restricting the 'rights' of minors, this coming from a country where most states don't let you purchase alcohol until the very late age of 21 (which to a European seems _far_ more bizarre.)
Good to see that there are some people left with common sense around, it's the same thing with the internet. People complain about what their kids are going on, but no one ever questions why they freely let their children browse the web without supervision, or let them play games without supervision.
Business Voyeur
But it's only hypothetical; I don't expect any kind of sane response at all when inquiring after Californian politics. You crazy surf-hippies have your fun!
I see a lot of people who continue to say that it's up to the parents to keep their children from playing games that arn't acceptable. These are the same people who either don't work, or who don't have children themselves.
Look at the cost of living these days. In many places, paying rent or a mortgage costs over $2000 per month. With phone bills, cable bills, electric bills, water bills, car payments, credit card payments, and so on, in order to afford all of this and have a parent able to stay at home to watch the kids, the parent that is working would need to be earning at least $80,000/year in order to stay on top of it all. Considering that most people are working in jobs that pay $45,000/year or under, it's no wonder that families need to have BOTH parents working in order to stay on top of costs. Oh, I forgot that with a child, it's idiotic not to have health insurance, and MOST jobs out there don't provide health insurance as a part of the job.
Until the overall cost of living is reduced, there will be NO chance for many families to have someone stay at home to watch what children are playing and doing. I don't see a push by government to help REDUCE costs. Gas prices are up which raises the prices on everything. Electric costs are going up and up with nothing being done to lower the prices. Preventing prices from going up isn't the same as lowering them.
The economy isn't in good shape right now. Consider that while prices arn't going up TOO fast(except for gas and the side effect of gas prices), people arn't getting paid much more each year. That's a problem. If you make $25,000/year, and prices go up by 5% across the board, but your paycheck only goes up by 3%, you have had life become much harder. If a family has a single income of $45,000/year, but rents and utility bills go up more per year than your income, you have less of a chance of doing well overall. Taxes are also going up in many places, so if you managed to buy a house and could BARELY afford the payments, the increase in taxes will force you to move out eventually because wages arn't increasing.
These are just some of the facts that involve the whole "parents should watch what their children are doing". If children get out of school three to four hours before a parent gets home from work, of COURSE there won't be anyone there to watch what they are doing, they are too busy trying to earn a living. Only the wealthy who don't work, or those who can work at home can possibly watch their children properly.
There's quite a few states where the decisions of the Classification and Rating Administration boards, who are not elected (or a list of names even published) hold the force of law. It's illegal for a theater owner in most of the places I've ever lived to allow someone under 18 to see an R-rated movie without a guardian. And the National Electric Code, for another example - it's written by members of the National Fire Protection Association, a non-governmental body, and most state or city building codes specify something along the lines of "All electrical installations must comply with the X. edition of the NEC."
Have you been touched by his noodly appendage?
Pornography is protected speech under current caselaw.
What does not get protection is "obscenity". But there is a very difficult test for speech to be deemed obscene. If there is any "serious artistic, literary, political or scientific" to it, it is not obscene. If the sexual acts are not depicted or described in "a patently offensive way", then the work is not obscene. If those acts are not specifically defined in state law, the work is not obscene. If contemporary community standards do not hold that the work "taken as a whole appeals to the prurient interest", then it is not obscene.
You can imagine that this makes it rather difficult for a state to win an obscenity case. Some porn may lack serious value... but most of it at least has a storyline, good lighting, costumes, etc.
Some porn may not meet community standards... but the question is not what the most sensititve Jerry Falwell devotee would find offensive. It is what an average person would find offensive. Judging by the amount of profits the porn industry brings in, the average person seems not to find it offensive at all.
So not only do the specific acts depicted have to be defined in state law (that's gotta be a fun bill to draft), but even when they are, no value and community standards are a tripping point for most cases.
Clever signature text goes here.
The parent makes a good point but I think he misunderstood the grandparent. The grandparent was making a point on the seperation of powers between the three branches of government. In no way did he say they could not judge based on previous interpretations.
- tlf
Arnie signed that law knowing full well it would be struck down. It's a win-win for him.
Arnold gets to take credit for "protecting" minors. He also now has the opportunity to slam the judicial branch for being "liberal." (Whatever that means.)
However, the law was nothing more than restraint of trade.
-- I am. Therefore, I think!
You aren't bigger than the first amendment. If you think you are, consider moving out of this country, ASAP.
That's right, it's their RIGHT as AMERICANS to dupe.
Like SF? Start reading Heinlein.
;- )
SF standing for "space fuckfests" here, I gather?
You can't take the sky from me...
Let me guess, you're a conservative that doesn't like court rulings about abortion and keeping theocrats out of our lives yet have no problems with activist judges that declared corporations to be people.
Funny, this is the first time I can remember a high profile case of violence being censored. Usually sex or speach is censored.
Where in the constitution is stare decisis established?
"Flamebait" does not mean "I disagree." My honest opinions are not intended to incite any flames; please try to be a bit more fair when you're moderating.
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
And what about movies with a violant Arnold?
I'm getting completely exhausted responding to people who think they know what laws exist and what laws don't based on common sense or whatever. There is no state anywhere (in the US) that regulates the availability of any content (other than pornography) on any medium, period. End of story. And there never will be.
The dumb-ass "we know what's best for children and what's best them is best for adults" tried this twice now in the last thirty years and lost horribly both times. In the early to mid 80s they tried to make laws enforcing the MPAA ratings on theatres and (later) video rentals. All efforts were struck down as unconstitional.
Then in the late 80s early 90s they tried to do it with music, by banning swear-worded rap and enforcing parental warning requirements and prohibition of sales of parentally warned against cds to kids. All laws were overturned.
In the end, in both cases, enough of the industry voluntarily adopted policies similar enough to the original laws that morons like you assume it is actually law. In the end, the bans on games will suffer the same fate. No actual prohibition, but the industry will (and has, really) self-regulate policies similar to what the laws wanted. But no actual bans will be enforced. Ever. Now, shut up, all of you. THE GOVERNMENT CANNOT NOR WILL EVER REGULATE CONTENT AVAILABLE TO MINORS OTHER THAN PORN. PERIOD.
The law requires that all games fitting its definitions of "violent" be emblazoned with a 2-inch by 2-inch sticker with the number "18" on it. Since it doesn't establish any ratings review board and doesn't punish publishers or developers directly (the $1000 fine only applies to the person who sells the game), it would have been up to the retailers themselves to decide which games were violent under the law, and to affix a label to them. There was a good chance this was going to get blocked, but with only a week to go, I can't believe major retailers didn't have a contingency plan.
Did anyone working at a game store in California get a box of "18" stickers from the corporate office and a list of games that needed to be labelled? Can you tell us what was on the list?
I live in Illinois. Two days after my 17th birthday I went to the local Gamestop to purchase a game I had put money down on already: Half-Life 2. I was very excited that I could finally buy Mature rated games for SEVENTEEN AND UP. The clerk asked me for my ID and I proudly gave him my driver's liscense. He said, "I'm sorry, but you have to be 18 or have a parent. Or, you could go pull any bum off of the street and buy it." Tell me, why must you be 18 to buy mature rated games for 17+? Am I the only one that sees a problem here?
There are no laws banning a minor from seeing an R rated movie. It's all voluntary. Get some of your facts straght, please.
While I know this is highly likely to be a troll, I'll quickly answer. Our entire legal system, and indeed the Constitution itself, is based on , and arguably a product of in one fashion or another, the British legal system. It is from that system where we derive stare decisis. The Constitution did not appear out of nowhere, but is an evolutionary document in the history of western civilization. If you don't understand that, I can't help you until you start to educate yourself on something other than pamphlets you get handed to you on the street.
The Constitution outlines the parameters of government in general, but as even a cursory browsing of constitutional law will reveal, it is only the beginning of the legal system in the US (and has been that way since the beginning).
And the parent post did not say it was law for the theatre's to check ids.
The parent did most certainly say that such laws existed:
From TFPP:
There's quite a few states where the decisions of the Classification and Rating Administration boards, who are not elected (or a list of names even published) hold the force of law. It's illegal for a theater owner in most of the places I've ever lived to allow someone under 18 to see an R-rated movie without a guardian.
There are no such laws. It is occasionally policy of a theater chain to check ids for R-rated, but there is no law forcing them to do so. The only reason they do it is because the manager really doesn't want to deal with irate calls from mothers about the movie their 9 year old just saw.