Supreme Court Strikes Down Cali's Video Game Law

[Wooster]

In a 7-2 decision, the supreme court struck down a California's law that said it was illegal for minors to purchase video games with "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."

Breyer and Thomas dissented. Roberts and Alito wrote a separate opinion stating a law more narrowly defined would be allowed.

Do you agree or disagree with the supreme court decision?
Do you agree or disagree with the California law?

Remember these are two different questions.

[Nick Tasogare]

Fix that post Wooster, then call me.

/Storms out with brief case

[Wooster]

Too late.

[Minoru]

I don't really think it's that big of a deal. If they want a game that does any of those things then they should just ask they legal guardian to buy it for them. And if their parental figure won't buy it for them, then they shouldn't be aloud to buy it in the first place.

[Wooster]

Perhaps, but what is the justification for preventing minors from buying a video game?

[Danielle]

Sam Alito Jr needs to go away and stay away. >.>

I was listening to this on the radio this morning, and I don't agree with the court decision, it's dumb. How could kids under the age of 18 be protected by freedom of expression concerning video games that are clearly not good for their age? Seriously, these games desensitize children to the reality of the human condition, they're not shocked by murder, war or crime. The supreme court is off base I think.

[Kunoichi]

I saw this in the paper today, I was psyched. I don't particularly care one way or the other, I don't think restricted sales on violent video games is going to damage free speech, but I think it's a nice incentive for parents to start... you know, parenting again?

[Zabimaru]

Don't they already not let children under the age of 18 buy M rated games? Isn't that what the ratings are for? If they rate the game T, then in my opinion, it's already approved for kids under the age of 18, and otherwise for games T and below, it's up to the parent/guardian.

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Perhaps, but what is the justification for preventing minors from buying a video game?

Wait...minors in Cali can buy any game they want?

I thought for mature games you need to be over 18 or 21.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Zabimaru

Don't they already not let children under the age of 18 buy M rated games? Isn't that what the ratings are for? If they rate the game T, then in my opinion, it's already approved for kids under the age of 18, and otherwise for games T and below, it's up to the parent/guardian.

Nope. That is an industry standard.

It is like movies. Minors cannot see R-rates movies because of the theater, not law.

Originally Posted by mrsticky005

Wait...minors in Cali can buy any game they want?

I thought for mature games you need to be over 18 or 21.

They couldn't, now they can.

I come down like this: While I love the fact that the Supreme court is putting high standards for the freedom of speech--especially with leftist trying to make everything "hate" speech--I don't see why a state cannot determine the sales of items. I don't think the federal government should tell states what they can prohibit minors from buying.

However, I don't particularly agree with the law itself. Kids have seen violence and movie for decades. Video games like Mortal Kombat are no worse. There are some things like Hot Coffee in GTA that I could agree that minors should be banned from buying, but retailers themselves pull games like that from their shelves. Law seems overbearing or pointless to me.

Still, I agree with Breyer and Thomas let California do what it wants.

[Jinchiruuki]

Honestly I don't care either way. It's not like minors here don't have parents who DGAF and buy them these games anyways. And if parents DON'T want their kids playing such games, then pay the hell attention to what the hell your kid is doing and be a parent. i.e seizing such games till they are older.

[Kreegah!!!]

The Supreme Court Ruling I fully oppose, as it steps on State Rights. I, too, do not agree with CA's stance on the issue, but see no reason to change the Legislature's mind. Even so, it seems wiser to me to leave that decision to parents and distributors. Kids can just go pout and feel abused as they have for years uncounted. Too bad, kids. Suck it.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Kreegah!

The Supreme Court Ruling I fully oppose, as it steps on State Rights. I, too, do not agree with CA's stance on the issue, but see no reason to change the Legislature's mind. Even so, it seems wiser to me to leave that decision to parents and distributors. Kids can just go pout and feel abused as they have for years uncounted. Too bad, kids. Suck it.

Kreegah!'s right. Are you?

[Shikamaru Nara]

I agree with this law.

If I'm a kid and I wanna buy an M rated game, I'm going to have to ask my parents to drive me to the store, or give me some money. They should have the ability to have discretion over what their children are playing, it should not be determined by law.

[Danielle]

Originally Posted by Shikamaru Nara

I agree with this law.

If I'm a kid and I wanna buy an M rated game, I'm going to have to ask my parents to drive me to the store, or give me some money. They should have the ability to have discretion over what their children are playing, it should not be determined by law.

Yes but by the law being deemed unconstitutional subverts the parents authority over the matter. Kids are going to do anything they want especially if they feel they are right in so doing. The Supreme court has no authority in saying it's against the kid's freedom of expression when the parents and state say they can't buy certain things.

[Wooster]

Originally Posted by Danielle

Yes but by the law being deemed unconstitutional subverts the parents authority over the matter. Kids are going to do anything they want especially if they feel they are right in so doing. The Supreme court has no authority in saying it's against the kid's freedom of expression when the parents and state say they can't buy certain things.

Ellie: Strict Constructivist.

[Danielle]

...I got a D in psychology >.>

[junchurikioftheleaf]

i disagree with california trying to ban everything

[mrsticky005]

Originally Posted by Wooster

Nope. That is an industry standard.

It is like movies. Minors cannot see R-rates movies because of the theater, not law.
They couldn't, now they can.

I come down like this: While I love the fact that the Supreme court is putting high standards for the freedom of speech--especially with leftist trying to make everything "hate" speech--I don't see why a state cannot determine the sales of items. I don't think the federal government should tell states what they can prohibit minors from buying.

However, I don't particularly agree with the law itself. Kids have seen violence and movie for decades. Video games like Mortal Kombat are no worse. There are some things like Hot Coffee in GTA that I could agree that minors should be banned from buying, but retailers themselves pull games like that from their shelves. Law seems overbearing or pointless to me.

Still, I agree with Breyer and Thomas let California do what it wants.

I think if you need an ID to buy rated R movies you should need an ID to buy rated M games. At the same time I think each state should decide
for itself.

[shippuden166]

Its there parents responsibility to moniter what there children watch.. not the states