Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Supreme Court To Rule On State Video Game Regulation

Posted by Soulskill on from the incrementing-scalia's-frag-count dept.

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.

25 of 278 comments (clear)

  1. No, WE do not have a responsibility by 0racle · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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."
    1. Re:No, WE do not have a responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Actually...It is!

    2. Re:No, WE do not have a responsibility by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Yes, correct. So we should also eliminate the laws that prevent 7-11 from selling them cigarettes, porno mags, and alcohol. It's the parents' responsibility to keep them from getting their hands on stuff like that.

      Believe it or not, society existed before laws against minors consuming alcohol, smoking cigarettes, and viewing pornographic material. I have no problem with someone below the age of 18 enjoying any of those things if they can prove that they are of sound mind to understand:

      a. the implications of using said items
      b. the short and long term effects of said items

      In reality, we all know what prohibition does. Teens still smoke. Teens still drink alcohol. Teens still look at porn. The only differences is, in our world, they are doing it away from the safety and guidance of adults.

      Now, I'm not saying that there should be a free pass for anyone to consume these currently prohibited substances... I'm just saying that our current approach clearly isn't working.

      Give it some thought.

    3. Re:No, WE do not have a responsibility by zero_out · · Score: 3, Insightful

      But parents can't be aware of what their children are doing 100% of the time. It's a LOT easier to control distribution at the point of sale, rather than at the point of consumption. If a parent tells their kid they are not allowed to purchase or play a certain game, can that parent ensure that their 15-year-old kid won't still buy that game when said parent tells their kid "yes, you may go to the mall with your friends"? 1,000 parents, enforcing a self-ban on violent games for their 1,500 kids isn't nearly as effective as 100 retailers being banned from selling them to those kids. If the parents want their kids to have access to those games, then they can still buy GTA 9 for Johnny's birthday.

    4. Re:No, WE do not have a responsibility by Psmylie · · Score: 3, Funny

      Not having a law in no way requires said 7-11 to sell cigarettes, porn or alcohol to minors. Also, there is a minor but very crucial point of there being demonstrably harmful physical effects to two of those items. Or all three, if you include carpal tunnel.

      --

      psmylie's dictionary: Godzillion (noun) Any number large enough to destroy Tokyo

    5. Re:No, WE do not have a responsibility by Monkeedude1212 · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Parents SHOULD be aware of what their children are doing 100% of the time. When I was growing up, I didn't go anywhere without letting my parents know. Even when I'd sneak out at night, I was sure to leave a note, because I knew my mother would call the cops if I was missing. That note would detail where and who I was with, and what time I expected to return. This was enough to satiate my parents.

      When my parents let my older brother play GTA2, but not me, it felt quite unfair, but my brother is 4 years older than me. When I came of what they deemed a proper age, they went and purchased UT2K4 for my birthday and I was happy to have their blessing, rather than trying to sneak-play a violent game. I knew there would be hell to pay if I was caught playing a game I wasn't allowed.

      It's really not that difficult. You keep the entertainment in a public room in the house, computers, TV's, etc. Then you tell them what they can and can't do. Then you punish them if they break the rules.

      Putting a restriction at the point of sale is about as effective as stopping kids from downloading music. The whole issue is a parenting problem, and it wasn't a problem over a decade ago, so why are we proposing a new fix?

    6. Re:No, WE do not have a responsibility by Mr.+Freeman · · Score: 4, Insightful

      "you certainly can't know or prevent them from buying an R-rated game or seeing an R-rated movie. Hence, the retailer should probably enforce it."

      ABSOLUTELY NOT! It is not the job of retailers to prevent kids from getting into trouble. Being a good parent does NOT mean knowing where your kids are 100% of the time. Being a good parent means teaching your kids how to handle the responsibility of being able to go buy that video game without permission.

      We live in a society now where everyone thinks kids should be monitored 100% of the time and yet people still complain about helicopter parents. MAKE UP YOUR FUCKING MINDS, PEOPLE! Kids should have some degree of freedom. Parenting is making sure your kids know how to handle that freedom. The ultimate purpose is that they know how to handle the freedom they receive when they turn 18.

      --
      -1 disagree is not a modifier for a reason. -1 troll, flaimbait, redundant, overrated are NOT acceptable substitutes.
    7. Re:No, WE do not have a responsibility by zero_out · · Score: 3, Interesting

      Kids will still pick cigarette butts off the ground, sneak into their parents' liquor cabinet, or get their older siblings to buy them for them. I know that. Yet, controlling their access via retailers is, for the most part, effective enough. It's not about preventing all kids from ever getting their hands on this stuff. It's about limiting it to as small an amount as possible, to ensure that as many kids grow up to be productive members of society as possible.

    8. Re:No, WE do not have a responsibility by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Insightful

      And the Law has been created to stop minors from smoking, drinking.

      Yeah, those laws are so great. What they do is just instead of kids smoking or drinking in the open where it can be monitored by others to make sure they are doing it responsibly, they just do it in private and do it to excess.

    9. Re:No, WE do not have a responsibility by ClosedSource · · Score: 3, Insightful

      There is no "responsible" way of smoking.

  2. "We" don't have a responsibility ... by SlappyMcInty · · Score: 5, Insightful

    The kids' parents have the responsibility. Get your big government nose out of my business.

    1. Re:"We" don't have a responsibility ... by CorporateSuit · · Score: 4, Insightful

      The kids' parents have the responsibility. Get your big government nose out of my business.

      That's the point of the bill. To make sure that the purchase is parentally responsible. This bill isn't in YOUR business unless you're in the business of selling R-rated materials to minors without parental consent.

      --
      I am the richest astronaut ever to win the superbowl.
    2. Re:"We" don't have a responsibility ... by Theaetetus · · Score: 4, Informative

      No, that's not the point of the bill. The point of the bill is that the Gov't knows better than the parent what is or is not appropriate for their child.

      No, it doesn't. The bill doesn't prevent a parent from buying any game they want for their child. It merely prevents a store from selling directly to the child without parental permission. You want your 10 year old to play GTA, then go buy a copy for them.

    3. Re:"We" don't have a responsibility ... by Lunix+Nutcase · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Really? You just mentioned "M-rated" moments later. That is the rating! The problem is that the ESRB doesn't have the manpower to thoroughly rate a game entirely accurately, nor does anyone take the rating seriously enough to impose any actual limitations on it.

      So do you or Ahhnold actually have any evidence of widespread selling of M-rated games to minors? I seriously doubt it.

      If the parent doesn't object to, say, their 14 year old driving a car, drinking alcohol, or smoking a cigarette, or seeing an R-rated movie, why should it be the State of California's business to tell them they can't?

      Yes, the State of California should have no business telling a parent that they can't let their kids, smoke, drink and see R-rated movies. The driving part is different as unlike the previous 3, an young teenage, an age where one is most prone to unsafe driving, can cause harm to others while the first three don't. But if the kid is say on a farm and doing nothing but driving a truck or tractor around on an isolate plot of land, yes the State of California should again have no say. Unless a parent is willfully and/or maliciously putting their minor kid's healthy or safety at harm (such as physical/sexual abuse, intentionally starving the kid, etc) then the wishes of the parents should be respected.

      It's funny that people like you have such panic attacks over these things and yet kids were still growing up just fine before we had laws banning them from drinking and smoking.

  3. Industry self-regulates by Enderandrew · · Score: 5, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Industry self-regulates by Enderandrew · · Score: 4, Informative

      The charge for video game censorship has been led by Democrats in California and New York. Hillary Clinton has considered it one of her personal crusades.

      I won't begin to suggest all Democrats are evil. I'm a middle of the road guy. But suggesting that this is a Republican issue just isn't factually correct.

      --
      http://blindscribblings.com - Tasty pop-culture in conceptual fashion.
    2. Re:Industry self-regulates by Hognoxious · · Score: 5, Informative

      I don't want the goverment to tell me how to raise my kids.

      They aren't, they're telling your kids how [not] to raise themselves. There's nothing to stop you buying restricted games for them, if you want.

      --
      Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
    3. Re:Industry self-regulates by DeadboltX · · Score: 3, Informative

      They aren't making it illegal for kids to play M rated games, nor are they making it illegal for parents to buy M rated games for their children. They are preventing M rated games from being sold directly to minors, just as R rated movie tickets are. If you are a parent and you find it ok for your minor to see an R rated movie then you are more than able to purchase the R rated ticket for them, just as you are more than able to purchase the M rated game for them.

  4. Coming from the Terminator by Myji+Humoz · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
    1. Re:Coming from the Terminator by hoggoth · · Score: 4, Funny

      Schwarzenegger: "Da veedo games are bad. Dey are too violent and muzt be kept away from de impressionable youth".
      Parent: "If video games are bad, then what is good Mr. Schwarzenegger?"
      Schwarzenegger: "To crush your enemies, see them driven before you, and to hear the lamentation of their women."

      --
      - For the complete works of Shakespeare: cat /dev/random (may take some time)
  5. Harmful Effects by Reason58 · · Score: 3, Interesting

    "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?

  6. Wrong. by Psmylie · · Score: 4, Interesting

    (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

    1. Re:Wrong. by Quiet_Desperation · · Score: 3, Insightful

      PARENTS have a responsibility

      Exactly! We need, like, a law that requires the parents to buy the game for the kid so the parent can decide... oh, wait...

  7. Re:Agreed. by hairyfeet · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.
  8. Re:Why is it so hard... by Beardo+the+Bearded · · Score: 3, Funny

    Hey, what they could do is give the kids laptops supplied with webcams, and have the schools monitor their activity 24/7.

    I'm surprised that nobody thought of that before.

    --

    ---
    ECHELON is a government program to find words like bomb, jihad, plutonium, assassinate, and anarchy.