Slashdot Mirror
Supreme Court To Rule On State Video Game Regulation
DJRumpy sends in this quote from an AP report:"The Supreme Court will decide whether free speech rights are more important than helping parents keep violent material away from children. The justices agreed Monday to consider reinstating California's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors, a law the 9th US Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco threw out last year on grounds that it violated minors' constitutional rights. California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the law in 2005, said he was pleased the high court would review the appeals court decision. He said, 'We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies.'"
SCOTUSblog has a more thorough legal description of the case.
Parents have a responsibility to be parents and raise their children as they see fit. I do not.
"I use a Mac because I'm just better than you are."
The kids' parents have the responsibility. Get your big government nose out of my business.
The video game industry puts ratings right on the cover. I don't want the goverment to tell me how to raise my kids.
We let the movie and music industries self-regulate. Why should video games be any different?
http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
We surely wouldn't want to expose the children to any media influences that glorify violence and fighting, now would we?
Signatures are the new names.
You know who else is always thinking of the children? Pedophiles.
The only thing necessary for evil to triumph is for it to be pitted against a slightly greater evil
"We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies."
Which harmful effects are those? Have there been credible, peer-reviewed studies which actually show any negative effect of seeing violence on a screen?
(Arnold Schwarzenegger) said, 'We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies.'"
WRONG. WE don't have a responsibility, PARENTS have a responsibility. WE (as in "we the people") have a responsibility to make sure the Constitution doesn't get corrupted by well-intentioned feel-good attempts to legislate morality. Get it straight, ya big goof.
psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo
The problem with comparing this to movies is that MPAA Rating system isn't law, merely a voluntary policy (Source http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Association_of_America_film_rating_system) Stores that refuse to sell/rent R-Rated Movies/M-Rated games to minors are well within their rights; stores are free to conduct their business as they wish. However, on that same note, stores can also choose to sell these movies/games to whoever they want.
Charming man. I wish I had a daughter so I could forbid her to marry one. -Arthur Dent
...for people (specially those sitting in the Supreme Court) to understand something as simple as: "Congress shall make no law"? Now law, means no law!
And that video games are speech is so obvious that is shameful if anyone needs it pointed out to them.
If parents don't want their children to play certain games, just like if they don't want them to read certain books, or don't want them to jump from certain bridges, it is their problem to figure out how to do this.
"When in doubt, use brute force." Ken Thompson
He told the court he would be back...
In the end it doesn't matter whether there are effects or not. So long as the masses believe that violent video games caused Columbine etcetc, this argument will always exist - and unfortunately will prevail a lot of the time. Good parenting > nanny state.
The problem is yet again the state is having to take over for piss poor parents, who don't teach their kids shit and use the x360 and PC as a babysitter. I let my kids play violent games if they wanted, and I never worried about it. Why? Because I taught them the difference between reality and video games, that's why! I sat them down with editors and showed them how game worlds were created, how by editing a WAD file you could add your own pictures to DOOM, how scripts decided the in game actions, etc. By the time I was done the boys knew what what going on from the time they clicked the icon until they hit exit.
Of course the side effect of that was listening to my rather unique "cursing" of the games like "You call this a level? There is tearing everywhere! And who designed this AI? I'm standing right in front of them and they aren't even attempting to dodge! DUCK YOU DUMMY!"
I believe it ultimately comes down to the parents to teach values and install responsibility in the child. Considering the fact that the oldest is getting ready to start medical school in the fall in the hopes of becoming one of those doctors without borders, and the youngest shall be most likely joining him in college a couple of years later to be a graphics artist, I think I did alright. But picking them up from their friend's houses I can state they are FAR from the norm, with waaaay too many kids living in homes where the parents don't interact with the child if they can help it, and the TV/game console/PC being the defacto babysitter.
Blame it on both parents having to work now, too many fathers not bothering to stay with the families, whatever, but more of my boy's friends were being raised by the machines than weren't. Too many parents just aren't bothering to even see or hell, even care what their kids are doing as long as it ain't bugging them. Sad and pathetic, but all too true.
ACs don't waste your time replying, your posts are never seen by me.
Ideally, parents would know what their children are doing 24/7, and be able to determine for themselves what is appropriate for their children.
Actually, no. You need an exit strategy better than, yesterday was your 18th b-day so good luck today in the wild free world.
Your plan is reasonably appropriate during the early toddler years. An utter disaster in the teenage years. The goal is to gradually slack off on the fascism while raising the kids to have good judgment... If they have good judgment they simply don't need the laws.
Furthermore, if they don't have good judgment, a ban on trendy enemy of the people "X" will simply result in them finding another equally effective way to ruin their lives.
Either way the laws are quite ineffective. You either end up with a society where the moral majority clowns hate the average 19 year old for thoughtcrimes, or you end up with 19 year olds whom hate the moral majority clowns for being SS guards. A great law if you want to do the old fashioned "divide and conqueror" against the american people, not so good for everyone else of course. But I suppose, never let morality stand in the way of a good profit...
"Science flies us to the moon. Religion flies us into buildings." - Victor Stenger
"We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies" ...said the man who got fame and fortune from making violent movies...
The Supreme Court will decide whether free speech rights are more important than helping parents keep violent material away from children.
The summary is actually lifted directly from the linked article. What a sterling piece of objective, non-editorial journalism.
The Supreme Court will of course decide no such question. Measures are already in place to help parents keep violent content away from children; those parents that care to keep informed about the sorts of entertainment that their children consume have more resources and information available to them now than they have ever had. The question becomes whether the state can hold retailers criminally liable for failing to fill a role that the parents have apparently abdicated. Also from TFA:
The supporters of the law say the same legal justifications for banning minors from accessing pornography can be applied to violent video games.
This isn't clearly the case at all. The case will revisit the issue of whether violence (not sex) can constitute regulable obscenity under the First Amendment, a parallel that courts have repeatedly refused to draw.
They point to recent Federal Trade Commission studies suggesting that the video game industry's rating system was not effective in blocking minors from purchasing games designed for adults.
Largely because that isn't what the rating system was designed to do. The whole point to the ESRB is to allow parents to make informed decisions as to what their children can watch, play, etc. The ESRB was never intended as a deterrent against children consuming that content without parental knowledge, or with parental consent. The notion behind the California law (and others in many other states that have been struck down) is that because the ratings aren't doing something that no one ever expected them to do, the state needs to have power to punish retailers for selling a product that (unlike tobacco or alcohol) has a strong component of judicially-recognized speech. I'll be interested to see what SCOTUS does with this...
It's a LOT easier to control distribution at the point of sale, rather than at the point of consumption.
Some parents don't want their kids eating sugary snacks. So, should we pass a law making it illegal for grocery stores to sell candy to anyone under 18 without parental permission?
Some parents don't want their kids learning about evolution, either. Should we pass another law making it illegal for bookstores to sell science textbooks to anyone under 18 without parental permission?
You can't possibly expect retailers to enforce parents' house rules. That's the parents' job. It's not impossible to stay on top of what your kids are doing, it's just a lot of work. If you're not prepared for that responsibility, then maybe you're not ready to have kids.
If the parents want their kids to have access to those games, then they can still buy GTA 9 for Johnny's birthday.
Why should those parents have to waste their time in order to not restrict their kids from doing something? Shouldn't it be the responsibility of the parents who do want to restrict their kids' behavior to enforce that restriction?
Visual IRC: Fast. Powerful. Free.
the title of your post asks "and this is different from r-rated movies, how?" the answer is that film ratings aren't enforced by laws. So why should videogame ratings be enforced that way?
http://www.popularculturegaming.com -- my blog about the culture of videogame players
helping parents keep violent material away from children
Maybe if they could be bothered to pay attention to what their kids are doing and paid more attention to what games they're buying for them, then we wouldn't need laws like this in the first place!?
Maybe we should require people to get a parenting license before procreating.
Perhaps so!
Are YOU using the TOOL, or is the TOOL using YOU? Think about it!
You really are just a complete dumb shit, aren't you?