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.

Comments

No, WE do not have a responsibility

[0racle]

Parents have a responsibility to be parents and raise their children as they see fit. I do not.

"We" don't have a responsibility ...

[SlappyMcInty]

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

Industry self-regulates

[Enderandrew]

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?

Re:Industry self-regulates

[Hognoxious]

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.