Slashdot Mirror
Judge Throws Out Michigan Violent Games Law
kukyfrope writes "The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) gained another victory today as Judge George Caram Steeh struck down the Michigan law previously attempting to ban the sale of certain games to minors, ruling the law unconstitutional. Judge Steeh is pushing for evidence showing the link between playing violent video games and actual acts of violence committed by players."
Here's to more "activist judges" like this guy.
Though it's a shame when a judge pointing out that that the government has just passed an illegal law is declared a "victory."
It's called BEING A PSYCHOPATH.
:(
Don't use so many caps. It's like YELLING.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
From TFA: Translation:Hats off to Judge Steeh.
____
~ |rip/\/\aster /\/\onkey
pff you're the exception that proves the rule! *later! off to kill some nazi'*
Thankfully, everyone is not just like you. There are some 14-year-old kids who shouldn't be playing GTA. Kids who will attempt to emulate the violence they perform on-screen in real life. That's why the game carries the M (or A) rating...to tell PARENTS that the game may not be appropriate for their kids.
Retailers are getting a lot better about self-regulating video game sales. I don't think a 14-year-old should be able to buy GTA; however, if his parents want to buy it for him, I'm going to assume they made the decision that he can deal with what he will see (and, virtually, do) and have no objections to the game being in their house.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
There are some adults that shouldn't be playing GTA. Nobody stops them.
Of course there is a "Link", of course there is a "Relationship". Those are statistical terms. There is a link between having too much money and having an Apple product. Do rounded self-contained white computers cause people to have too much money? (or, to play this role more adequetly) Do they cause people who already have just enough money to enjoy such things to get even more money?
I'll admit to liking shiny expensive things, but I find that indulging in that desire leaves me with less money, not more.
HYPER-RAMBLE ACTIVATE
Though in this case "Money" would translate to "ability to be aggressive", not "desire to be aggressive". There are certainly two factors involved in the "I wish I could afford one of those big-ass monitors" example. And of course it's "desire" not "ability" which any sensible law would be attempting to prevent. The question is: would I be more desirous of bigger, flatter, more-roundeder monitors if I had the seed which I could technically afford? And, more to the point: would it then make me want to try OSX? ( person who likes squishing bugs -> person who likes making pictures of exploding cars appear on a screen -> [magicar transforumu] -> person who likes raping babies and putting bloody nun-heads on the dashboards of the innocent )
Of course, would I really even want a big rounded monitor if I didnt, deep down, already want to try OSX? And this doesnt take into account that I already use bash, and the possibility of between the time of purchasing a big rounded flat monitor and trying OSX ( that is, decapitating nuns ), I may have met an intriguing and mysterious Mac-using guillotine aficionado (who doesnt even like big monitors).
Some guy once said "Lies, Damn Lies, and Statistics." I'm pretty sure he would have liked San Andreas, too.
ULTRA-MEGA-RAMBLE XXTREME GO!
The point is: "Inside Man" sucks. If you want to do random out-of-place commentary, but can't find an example in a real game which is "extreme" enough to get the point accross, then maybe you should adjust your shallow world-view instead of making up one and then pointing to it to say "They're just like that! and isnt that horrible!?"
in conclusion:
I was gonna be first-post when I started typing this. I assume not at this point.
-- 'The' Lord and Master Bitman On High, Master Of All
You're assuming they actually care. There are far too many parents that see media (in any form) as a way to shut their kids up for a couple of hours.
Even when I earned my own money and purchased my own software, my parents still sat down to see what I was spending my time on. This is called, being involved.
so its like all the other people are also punished for someone going insane...
There are also some adults who shouldn't be parenting kids. That's the real issue, I think. In today's world, chances are sooner or later a young child will hear someone say "fuck," or surf something R-rated on cable, or click somethng online that will show them boobies, or play a violent game like GTA, or read a banned book... if not at their own house, then at someone else's. The idea should be to educate your kids on what is and isn't appropriate to do in real life from an early age, but what parent wants to actually take that sort of blame nowadays when they can easily find some big company to sue?
Slashdot Burying Stories About Slashdot Media Owned
In the UK the later GTA games carry an "18 Certificate", this is not just a recommended guideline but carries legal weight so if a store sells them to a minor they can be prosecuted.
/ pa/cm200506/cmhansrd/cm060323/text/60323w38.htm
But this seldom happens, the link below shows that last year there were only 11 prosecutions and I do not believe that this is because selling 18 rated games to kids does not happen.
http://www.parliament.the-stationery-office.co.uk
Unfortunately, this is a frustratingly inaccurate assumption - parents do not monitor a video game as they might a movie or a television program (and many do not even monitor those enough, but that is another topic). I worked in a GameStop (it was actually a Funcoland at that point) during the GTA3/GTA Vice City period and time after time, parent or grandparent would walk up to my counter buying GTA for a kid who was in his early teens or even younger. This was, in fact, my favorite situation because I get to see the look on their face as I explain.
"Do you realize this is rated M for mature?"
"Oh, no, I didn't read the label. Why is it rated mature?"
"Because you can pick up a prositute, pay her for 'service', kill her, take the money you just paid her back, drive around running over innocent people, and then wind down by lighting bums on fire and shooting cops."
The look on their face was priceless, but it was also incredibly sad that they didn't even go to the trouble of reading the game's packaging. I just don't understand how a parent can be so unconcerned with what their child is doing, and I don't know why they want to punish the entertainment media for lazy parenting.
...inevitability.
/. for a change...who'd have thought?
Seriously, games are a new entertainment medium, and as history has told us, all new mediums are resisted by the older generations and are gradually accepted overtime.
I'm glad to see that this is happening sooner rather than later. Good news on
I've always believed that you should need to apply for a parenting license in order to have kids... not that I like DMVs, but this is sort of a nessasary evil.
Perhaps some parents don't realize or know just how violent a game can be these days. It doesn't come up on the threat radar.
True confidence comes not from realising you are as good as your peers, but that your peers are as bad as you are.
An ambitious politician (we'll just call him... Mr. X) is looking to gain some bi-partisan appeal. Mr. X becomes aware of the Hot Coffee issue and it's run off, and decides to push forward a law banning the sale of M rated video games to minors. The bill isn't all that well writen, but that's not the point.
Mr. X has several others sign on to his planned bill, including folks from the othr side of the political spectrum. The bill gains huge support from both sides of Mr. X's legislative body.
The bill is passed, and signed by the Governer.
The game industry has the state sued for violation of the first amendment of the constitution, and the state supreme court rules in the game industry's favor. The state is forced to pay for the game industry's legal costs.
Mr. X can then blame the failure of his efforts to 'protect children from violent video games' (a duty ment for parents) on 'Activist Judges'.
In the end... the losses are:
-A unknown amount of time lost to pushing forward the game legislation that could have gone to more meaningful efforts.
-Taxpayer dollars lost trying to defend the bill in court.
The gains, however:
-Mr. X gains a reputation as a politician who wants to protect children, and has another example to use when playing the 'Activist Judge' card.
And your manager was okay with you turning down sales for him?
Just saying, I mean... Everyone I know who works in a store knows it's a better deal to sell cigarettes and porn to minors, since they'll easily make more money than the occasional fine. Having a moral conscience really isn't good for business.
And the warnings that are on a box usually tell you WHY it was rated that way. Pretty easy to determine. Is it fantasy violence (like the crusades and stuff or is it blood and gore)
The phrase "more better" is acceptable English. suck it grammar Nazis
So does anyone think that there might be a correlation between the education and intelligence of the gamer with how a specific game might affect them?
/. are educated, intelligent individuals. Take a kid who has grown up in a bad family situation, non-educated, let him shoot people for 18 hours a day while his brain is still developing and I would almost wager to guess that he would have very little problem carrying out the acts in the game in real life should a similar situation develop - almost like instinct.
Also, some personalities are more apt to react impulsively to a situation versus thinking it through.
As you can see by my name I fly RC aircraft as a hobby. One of the tools I use to practice aerobatics with is a RC flight simulator. It mimics the physics and weather of a model airplane in flight and uses the same controller as I use to fly my "real" model airplanes. It doesn't remove the anxiety of trying a new manuever on the real model, but after I've done something on the simulator a few hundred times flying the real manuever feels just like I've done it a hundred times.
Could it possibly be the same with violence and first person shooter games? Do people who commit these crimes feel as though they have done it before due to the game and its just a walk in the park? Does it remove the emotional factor of taking someone's life? How are first person shooters and other games different from military training simulators? Would someone that has flown tons of flight simulators on the computer as games have any qualms about flipping a switch and dropping ordinance on a village?
A lot of the time we think that "no, its not possible" because its not possible for "us". Gaming is fun for us, we have no problem differentiating it from reality but most of the people who post here on
I really don't know. My parents have never forbidden me to play any game, nor have they forbidden me to watch any movie (at least not by other means than sending me to bed when it was past my bedtime anyway). However, I would never describe my parents as bad or unconcerning.
Does this mean I'm one of the 'lucky' people that isn't influenced by all the violence? I don't think so. I think most people have thought about some nifty GTA (or any other violent game)-scene when some annoying prick was talking to them. The main difference imho is that most people don't actually act on these thoughts (unless maybe afterwards, in-game, to release some pressure).
The main question is: do videogames make it easier for people to go across that boundary and start shooting around in the real world too? I think it's quite safe to assume not, otherwise the world would be a far worse place. And people that are *that* influenced by games will probably be quite as influenced by 'The Matrix' too.
In the old time we played 'army' or 'cowboy and indian' for real. And yes, some people had the crazy idea that they should go and try it with real guns when they grew up. I didn't see any court action against that.
If parents should do *anything* to 'protect' their children, it's talking to them every now and then so they can detect problems early, and keep them away from weapons, not videogames.
Dagnabbit, don't you see! If we let the young'ins get away with this, the next thing we know they'll have hover-majigs and whatchama-copter and we'll never get them off the damn lawn!
This is a very easy problem to study. If there are over 6 million players world wide who play World of Warcraft, someone could easily look at crime statistics and make a proper link.
1. Have hate crimes against Taurens risen since WoW was launched?
2. Has there been a rise in reported cases of grand theft ninja?
3. Are more Gnomes getting college degrees and taking jobs at NASA, or are they still building explosives and arcanite dragons?
You could go even deeper than this, and I think that you'll find that video games don't contribute to the problem.
The idea should be to educate your kids on what is and isn't appropriate to do in real life from an early age, but what parent wants to actually take that sort of blame nowadays when they can easily find some big company to sue?
Part of parenting is knowing what is and is not appropriate for your own child. The best person in the world to judge that is a good parent. Not society, not a game company, not Congress, and not some random person on the internet (yes, I've had people tell me what is and is not appropriate for my son, here and elsewhere). Some children have no problem viewing "graphic" content like GTA. I was one of those. However, some--a minority in my opinion--are not emotionally capable of seperating fantasy imagery from real life. It's not that they don't know the difference between GTA and the real world, it's that they think that they can apply what they see in GTA to the real world.
I've seen kids whose parents tried very hard to teach them that TV and video games aren't real continue to attempt to carry out what they saw there...and more than once it resulted in physical injury. Parents are supposed to filter the world for their kids. Getting hit with the full reality of how things are at age 6 is a bit much for most kids.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Despite not liking the management, it was always stressed that we weren't supposed to sell inappropriate games to kids. We had the ESRB ratings posted on big signs as well, and we carded people who wanted to buy an M game. They were quite serious about it, and if they had been otherwise, I still would have done it - if only because it is the right thing to do.
Anyone who doesn't realize how violent video games can be hasn't owned a TV in years. That kind of rules out video games for their kids.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Bad analogy. He wasn't refusing to sell games to minors, he was informing a parent (accompanying a minor) that the game might not be appropriate. It could be argued that selling them an M-rated game now means lost sales in the future, when they find out how bad GTA really is (and resents the shop for selling it to them anyway). People are funny like that.
Unfortunately, this is a frustratingly inaccurate assumption - parents do not monitor a video game as they might a movie or a television program (and many do not even monitor those enough, but that is another topic).
Correction: Bad parents don't. I do. Just because bad parents don't pay attention to what they are buying their children doesn't mean that restricting sales to minors is useless. It still helps the good, concerned parents make conscious decisions for their children.
I was renting a movie one day when a boy--maybe 12--and his parents approached the counter next to me. The boy put a game on the counter, the clerk scanned it, and said "You are aware that this game is rated M for violence and sexual content?" The father turned to his son and asked "is that okay?" then said "fine" when his son nodded. I don't think that guy had a clue what he'd just been asked, I wanted to slap him.
120 characters for a sig? That's bloody useless.
Judge Throws Out Michigan Violent Games Law >> Judge pumps a cap in ass of Michigan Violent Games Law
I wasn't the father you saw, but I could easily have been. Here is the situation as I imagine it from the father's point of view. The parents take their son to the video game rental shop to rent him a game as a treat, perhaps because he brought home a good report card, or did well in sports at school. He has heard about this particular game, and picks it from the rack. The parents look over the cover and decide, in spite of the M rating, that it is appropriate for him. At the counter the father, hearing the question from the clerk, is concerned that his son might be embarrased to have porn. When the son indicates he is OK with it, the transaction is completed.
"And your manager was okay with you turning down sales for him?"
I used to work at Funcoland, if anybody remembers that store these days. My boss would likely have been pretty happy with me there. Yes, it was a turned down sale, but I also would have been doing my job as "Games Advisor". I had to keep the customers happy, and that meant giving good advice about which games to buy. I can imagine the parents being rather happy if I had stopped them to say "Are you aware of the content of this game?"
I think this law is pretty damned silly, but I have a lot of respect for the dude for doing what he did. If that were more commonplace, these laws would have even less ground to walk on.
"I like to lick butts!" by MobileTatsu-NJG (#32700246) (Score:5, Informative)
How do you not see the sames your kids are playing? As a parent it's your job to watch what your kid does in your house. No you cannot and do not want to be the all invasive 24-hour hovering parent, but you need to have basic awareness of what is going on. If a kid is able to hide a TV, videogame console, and games from you, you are doing a poor job.
Game systems should be in public areas of the house where you are likely to spend your time. That way you can keep an eye on what your kids are playing.
Here's an even better thought: Play the games your self before your kid does, and with your kid as well! What a concept! You don't like games you say? Suck it up, part of being a parent is doing things for the benefit of your child. You'll find, if you try them, that games are actually designed to be entertaining. Play the games and decide if you personally feel they are acceptable, don't rely on the opinions of others.
Thank God this shit isn't happening in Canada :)
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
It appears the state saw the video game law as an answer to obscenity in gaming. The S.Ct. allows government censorship of obscenity provided the government can show a rational relation between what they have done and what legitimate state purpose they are hoping to serve. This is considered the lowest threshhold for the Government to justify the Constitutionality of one of its acts. It is by this same rational basis that allows state, local, and Federal governments to seize land from one property owner and give to another if they believe it is better economically, thus turning a property right into an economic right.
What the judge has basically said here is the State has failed to meet even the lowest standard to prove Consitutionality.
This is a Federal Court judge applying established Supreme Court jurisprudence to what is categorically an obscenity issue. I see no judicial activism here.
Judicial activism occurs when a judge renders a decision clearly at odds with otherwise valid laws or established precedent that is itself founded on sound jurisprudence. Since the First Amendment grants Free Speech, but the government still has an interest in not allowing people to yell "Fire" in a crowded theater, the Court has categorized speech that may be restricted uncer certain criteria. Obscenity is one such category, and it is given the low threshhold because it is argueably not the meaning of the First Amendment.
Conversely, if this were completely political speech, the Government should have a near impossible chance to silence it. So, this judge is acting completely within the framework offered by the Court, and is not bucking precedent. Therefore, he is not an activist.
What we have hear is a Legislature that is clearly wrong on this one. I would love to see the breakdown of votes by party as the web site suggests a nearly equal footing by both parties.
What those who want activist courts fear is rule by the people.
Losses
Public perception of the promoter of the bad law likely improves.
Public perception of the judiciary likely falls.
Someone has to take significant risk to ensure the government behaves properly.
Gains
The bad law is gone.
It is possible the promoter of the bad law might look stupid.
People are reminded there are some people in positions of authority who understand and believe in the constitution/laws of the country.
What other people choose to buy is none of your business. Taking away people's right to choose is not the right thing to do. Keep your own morals to yourself. I'm glad you no longer work there.
Why should you protect people from things which are REAL, you know, these REAL things commonly known as LIFE? (*hat off to Offspring*)
This is one reason a lot of today's music is watered down shit. Walmart won't sell CDs with explicit lyrics. Walmart was (and maybe still is) the biggest seller of CDs in the US. Walmart alone could make or break an album. If Walmart refuses to sell an album. Many labels won't publish an ablum that they know won't be very profitable. They will force the artists to "clean up" the album. So you couldn't put explicit lyrics in an album.
That's right, Walmart had the power to decide what kind of content artists could have in their art.
Question everything
You can do WHAT????
/rushes off to look for old GTA disk....
He informed the parent as to what was in the game. No rights were "taken away" as a minor will do/view/listen to what (s)he is told by the parent within the limits of the law. You know, parental guidance and all that. If anything he enhanced the ability of the parent to exercise their rights as a parent.
Do us all a favor and don't reproduce as I don't want to see what your idea of "parenting" entails. It reminds me of a former supervisor of mine. She was an "ex-hippy" who believed that "her children should choose their own paths".. from the age of ten or so. They're now both adults and convicted criminals. We (the parents) are there to provide guidance to, and at times make decisions for our offspring until they've reached adulthood.
And this applies to the parent poster how? He didn't say these titles should be banned, he said the parents should be informed. I disagree with Walmart pulling music, but that's their right. There is nothing wrong with being informed prior to purchase as to the type of material on a CD or in a game.
So basically, you're blaming Walmart for the so-called artists selling out and capitulating. If they really were artists and felt so strongly about it they could sell their stuff online or in niche record shops. It appears as though the mighty dollar is worth more than their so-called art.
What other people choose to buy is none of your business. Taking away people's right to choose is not the right thing to do. Keep your own morals to yourself. I'm glad you no longer work there.
I agree with the first half of this comment. I assume the parent poster didn't take away the customer's right to choose what to purchase. He simply gave them additional information. In fact, if that information was on the box, he's not actually giving them any extra info -- just calling attention to something they should have already read. At that point, if Granny had said "I understand, but my grandson's mature enough to handle it." I'm assuming he would have sold her the game. If that was not the case, then I'd have to agree that he had gone over the line.
We dont sell porn, beer, or smokes to kids, why do we want them to be able to buy games like GTA and Hitman?
Manitoba, Ontario and Nova Scotia have laws that codify compliance with the ESRB ratings. Also, retailers like Walmart and EB Games have voluntarily agreed to apply the ESRB ratings to purchases in their stores across Canada.
There are also some adults who shouldn't be parenting kids.
You, sir, have become a friend.
Part of parenting is knowing what is and is not appropriate for your own child. The best person in the world to judge that is a good parent. Not society, not a game company, not Congress, and not some random person on the internet (yes, I've had people tell me what is and is not appropriate for my son, here and elsewhere). Some children have no problem viewing "graphic" content like GTA. I was one of those. However, some--a minority in my opinion--are not emotionally capable of seperating fantasy imagery from real life. It's not that they don't know the difference between GTA and the real world, it's that they think that they can apply what they see in GTA to the real world.
I've seen kids whose parents tried very hard to teach them that TV and video games aren't real continue to attempt to carry out what they saw there...and more than once it resulted in physical injury. Parents are supposed to filter the world for their kids. Getting hit with the full reality of how things are at age 6 is a bit much for most kids.
wonderful... finally something that deserves to be modded up and my points expired yesterday...
upon the advice of my lawyer, i have no sig at this time
You misunderstand me. I'm all for informing the parent, and letting the parents of the child parent the frickin' child. But what he was doing was refusing to sell games to kids (it was implied the parents weren't there). It is perfectly legal in most states to sell M rated video games to kids and therefore the store should stay out of it.
What I'm against is retail stores trying to enforce their morals on their customers at their own behest.
And this applies to the parent poster how? He didn't say these titles should be banned, he said the parents should be informed. I disagree with Walmart pulling music, but that's their right. There is nothing wrong with being informed prior to purchase as to the type of material on a CD or in a game.
It applies because it's another example of a retail store inflicting its morals on its customers.
And this applies to the parent poster how? He didn't say these titles should be banned, he said the parents should be informed. I disagree with Walmart pulling music, but that's their right. There is nothing wrong with being informed prior to purchase as to the type of material on a CD or in a game.
He said nothing of informing parents! He said, "We had the ESRB ratings posted on big signs as well, and we carded people who wanted to buy an M game."
Laws against selling video games of [rating] to [demographic] are being declared unconstitutional left and right. ("In a decision that drew upon the judicial rulings of cases where similar legislation had been deemed unconstitutional, Judge Whyte wrote that "games are protected by the First Amendment and that plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their argument that the Act violates the First Amendment.")
Since your personal attack on me seems to have been based on a misconception of my point I'll let it slide saying only this: I'm not going to let my kids (assuming I ever have any) be complete shitheads like you seem to think they would be. I'll let my kids choose their own path alright, as long as it's not a foolish path.
The bottom line is, stores should not be telling us how to raise our kids. I don't believe there is any correlation between playing violent video games and criminals, I blame bad parenting.
Question everything
He wasn't informing the parents, which I fully advocate. He was carding the kids themselves (implying the parents weren't there). It's not the store's responsibility to deny kids games. If you don't want your kids buying games, don't give them the money or ask the store not to sell them to your kid.
I fully intend to let my kids play violent video games, because they're video games.
Inform the parents and let them decide. If the parents aren't present, tough shit. The stores aren't being paid to raise the kids. It's a simple division of labor. Parents raise kids, stores sell stuff. The two shouldn't mingle. If any store ever tried this "carding" malarky on my kids that were attempting to make a legal game purchase you can bet your ass I'd be in there giving their manager a lecture.
It is not the job of the government or Gamespot to shield my kids from violent video games. If I want that to happen I'll see to it personally. Just as any good parent would.
Question everything
Oh what?! Fuck. I'm totally buying video games for underage kids now.
Whoo, signature!
DesireCampbell.com
I'm personally ambivalent on the idea of whether violent games should be sold to minors or not--yes, parents should be responsible for checking out what their kids play, but there are also many ways for children to get the games without parents' money or presence--but this brings up a point of comparison for me.
Movies, like games, are rated according to their content and whether or not it is appropriate for different age groups. Some movies kids can see on their own, some only with a parent present who has determined that the child is mature enough to handle the material, and some are inappropriate no matter what. Why is it different for a video game? Both are visual depictions of sensitive material.
I can't say whether or not the sale of M-rated games to minors should be banned, just as I'm not sure whether or not the viewing or rental of R-rated movies to childern under 17 should be prohibited. The fact is, though, that one medium is being legally regulated while the other is not. Does anybody else see something wrong with this? If it is illegal to prohibit kids from buying M-rated games, shouldn't it be illegal to bar them from attending R-rated movies? And if it is logical and desirable that these restrictions should be placed on movies, why are games any different?
All in all, my instinct is that prohibiting sales of M-rated games to children without parental consent is a good thing. Kids might think they're mature enough to handle sensitive material, but it is the parent who ought to have the maturity to know which games or movies the child should be watching. If after that a child is negatively affected by a violent video game, it's entirely the parent's fault--he or she should have been more vigilant about the child's experiences and information intake. Saying that a kid can't by a M-rated game on his or her own isn't prohibiting the kid from playing--it's just a way to involve parents in the decision.
What we do need is probably a better, more comprehensive, and more accurate ratings system for video games. I'm given to understand that movie ratings are carried out more rigorously than game ratings, and I've heard many complaints that video game ratings are either inaccurate or insufficient. If ratings were more closely policed, I don't think it would be a problem to regulate video game sales. If a game is rated mature and can only be bought with parents present, then on their head be it if their children are exposed to material they don't condone.
From the article:
Judge Steeh is pushing for evidence showing the link between playing violent video games and actual acts of violence committed by players.
I am expecting that the next wave of laws that target games will be bundled with such "evidence" from "experts"...
I think you may have misread the original post. You say:
"I'm all for informing the parent, and letting the parents of the child parent the frickin' child. But what he was doing was refusing to sell games to kids (it was implied the parents weren't there)."
but in the original post it reads:
"time after time, parent or grandparent would walk up to my counter buying GTA for a kid who was in his early teens or even younger"
I think we may all be in violent agreement.
It is perfectly legal in most states to sell M rated video games to kids and therefore the store should stay out of it.
No, they have the right to refuse a sale. Don't like it? Don't go there.
What I'm against is retail stores trying to enforce their morals on their customers at their own behest.
No, this is stores following their own ethical guidelines. It isn't at all like pharmacists refusing to fill a birth control script, because there's no serious consequence to the customer.
Laws against selling video games of [rating] to [demographic] are being declared unconstitutional left and right. ("In a decision that drew upon the judicial rulings of cases where similar legislation had been deemed unconstitutional, Judge Whyte wrote that "games are protected by the First Amendment and that plaintiffs are likely to prevail in their argument that the Act violates the First Amendment.")
That's right - so far, those laws have been struck down. Stores can still follow that policy.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"
It is not the job of the government or Gamespot to shield my kids from violent video games. If I want that to happen I'll see to it personally. Just as any good parent would.
If you want your kids to be able to play GTA3, go buy it for them. Gamestop is perfectly within its rights to refuse service to your kids.
"We returned the General to El Salvador, or maybe Guatemala, it's difficult to tell from 10,000 feet"