#101 Edited by ninjalegend (469 posts) -
@Gonmog: Well put. When one's government draws a line in the sand, it had better not have an easy devils advocate. No slavery permissible? Sure, I'll fight and die for that. Equal woman's rights? Same thing. If you think you should amend the constitution, make sure almost all Americans agree and find no down side. If you are not willing to go to war for this conviction, maybe it is not worth shitting all over the doctrine that help keep this country great. These beautiful words keep us free, and help us avoid the tyranny that the phrase "power corrupts, ultimate power corrupts absolutely."
#102 Posted by Gonmog (602 posts) -

@StarvingGamer said:

I didn't see it mentioned in the article, but I'm assuming if this passes then it will become the job of the government (or a government appointed body) to determine which games fall into the no-no zone. Basically the government would be responsible for rating games. If this happens then everything is going to be totally fucked and I'm going to moving to Canada.

Yes. That is what will have to happen, a whole new office will have to be made with that sole reason. Something we just don't have.

#103 Posted by liako21 (529 posts) -

nintendo wins......................................................................................................? 

#104 Posted by Maotou (71 posts) -

 Been while since I've seen an article talking about this. Seeing as how the case has dragged on and come along this far, I'm hoping that it doesn't pass though. Parent's should be responsible enough to realize what games are appropriate for there children to play and what games aren't.  

#105 Posted by ghostNPC (794 posts) -

Where there's money to be had, rules and regulations don't mean shit.  Even if this passes, companies will find a way around it.

#106 Posted by Waffles13 (611 posts) -

"this Court has held that the Constitution does not confer the protection on communication aimed at children as it does for adults."
What fucking court puked up this crap?

#107 Posted by Ronald (1406 posts) -
"California has a compelling interest in protecting the physical and psychological care of minors," reads an amicus brief filed by California state senator Leland Yee.

So, did LA secede from the state of California?

#108 Posted by XxRANGAxX (226 posts) -

I agree with the fact that its the parents responsibility to make sure what their kids are playing isn't inappropriate for them.

Also I must point out I am from Australia, and I think most people already know our laws on games right? We already have strict laws on games AND an 18 clarification rating but if a game is rated 18 in Australia it is banned and the company must make a "censored" or "low violence" version of the game to be released in Australia (also we are currently pusher FOR an R18 classification, isn't that ironic), but keep in mind I'm not saying suck it up I'm simply saying that if this dose happen to Americans, it might just be a little harder to buy the games you want (and EB Games might have to just say "you must be 18 to enter"). But my worry is what effect might this have on the rest of the world because if developers start to censor their games just so the don't have to be in the "18" I might have a bigger impact on the world than I first thought, but lets hope it just like Australia gaming still will thrive but in a stricter way with no effect on the world.

#109 Posted by geirr (2788 posts) -

No fear, EA's Origin will save you!

#110 Posted by Klaimore (944 posts) -

Ok I'm sorry for my ignorance but what is this topic really about? To make it illegal for minors to buy games that are classified as violent, or to completely ban violent games?

#111 Edited by darkdragonsoul99 (137 posts) -

 @Gonmog said: 

I hate the fact that i seen no fewer then 5 people in the first few pages saying if this passes it wont matter....That makes me very sad. And to the dumb ass that posted first...Shame on you.

Freedom of Speech is one thing the US has that is not all over the world.

If this law is passed, it will spreed to all our forms of free speech, books, movies, music, tv, news.

This whole thing makes me sad. And it shows that We, as gamers, are so out of touch with the world out side of gaming that we ignore the bigger picture.

But given how the lawyer was questioned at the start of this whole miss, i dont see it passing.

Good questions where brought up that no answers where really given, like who will get to decide what is indecent for kids, and who will be in charge of the whole of video games if it passes, and how is video games any diff from any other form of speech out there?

I hope this dont pass because it will lead else where. Same with the damn airport crap we have to deal with...it will spread....

 Well we know where the air port thing spread into your homes. The sad thing is we let them fuck with our 4th amendment rights for years and now they are starting on our first and there are people who just don't care.  
 I'll say this as clearly as I can. Too every person who doesn't seem to care.  Every little bit matters don't think just because it's a small insignificant cut that it wont do any damage. It's death by a million cuts every one seems like it doesn't matter till your dead or in this instance no longer free.  
#112 Posted by Kazona (3104 posts) -

After reading through all this, I really don't see what the big deal about this (potential) new law is. Instead of an M for mature sticker, the boxes will have an 18 sticker on it. Big deal. In the Netherlands that's the classification we use for all US M rated games. It does not stop or even slow down the sales of such games.

And the store won't be able to sell violent games directly to kids anymore? Again, what's the big deal? Parents can still buy it for them if they feel their child is mature enough to play it.

I have zero problems with this law being approved by the court.

#113 Posted by distortedwon (7 posts) -

The only thing i worried about is if this is passed that it could open the door for many other forms of freedom of speech to be subjected to censorship 

#114 Posted by darkdragonsoul99 (137 posts) -
@Red:  Yes it will because it's going to effect the developers what effects the devs effects all gamers.
#115 Posted by mrfluke (5426 posts) -

my god, i hate al you congressmen and you dumb parents, i hope that bill doesnt pass

#116 Posted by chrissedoff (2217 posts) -

the supreme court is a bunch of fanatically pro-corporate whores. usually, that means bad news for the rest of us. but in this case, it's going to work in our favour. they'll never rule in a way that might threaten big business's profit margin.

#117 Posted by darkdragonsoul99 (137 posts) -
@Kazona:  Yes that is because your market is small and what your country does doesn't really effect the developers decisions. Now america on the other hand if we make such a law and stores stop carrying the games they will stop making the games period. we are the driving force in the games market remember what happens here in america effects everyone because we drive the globule market. when our market cashed so did everyone else .  
You are simply not seeing the big picture here. 
#118 Posted by Anjon (140 posts) -

@liako21: Nintendo is directly affected by this as well. Thinking off the top of my head, even Wind Waker would be labeled as a violent video game due to the ending alone.

#119 Posted by Killroycantkill (1434 posts) -

I still think that the ESRB does a fine job of rating games and judging what game is suitable for "x" age group. Also game stores do a great job of keeping those kind of games out of a kids hands without a legal adult at the counter. I can't tell you how many times I've tried to buy GTA Vice City as a kid but no matter what store I went to they wouldn't sell it to me.

I feel that if they change how games are regulated then they can't just stop there, and once more popular forms of media (eg Movies, Music) are regulated like this then shit will hit the fan. It's a case of an older generation not understanding the medium for what it is, and just seeing all the shock news about some kid shooting up a school because of a game made 10 years ago.

#120 Posted by Cmdc00kie (44 posts) -

It's sad to see so much effort go into something as pointless as this when it clearly is an issue that should be in the hands of the parents.

#121 Edited by Coombs (3449 posts) -
@Twazuk said:

How are violent video games regulated in the United States? Are there no laws against selling mature rated games to minors? That's all I can imagine when these sort of cases come up. Do the people selling these games not care how old the people actually buying them actually are? Are there not age ratings on your boxes?

There are voluntary guidelines, 
Same system (ESRB) as the movie industry  
It is legal to sell a 2 year old a copy of SAW, since these are merely guidelines, not laws. 
Though almost every store has policy in place that the guidelines are to be followed.
#122 Posted by AndrooD2 (225 posts) -

Another well written article, Patrick. Thank you for continuing to raise the level of discourse in games journalism.

#123 Posted by TheChaos (1138 posts) -
@SpaceBoat said:

Not really on the top of my news, so I hadn't heard about this until now. It's kind of interesting the way games receive separate judgement from film or literature when it comes to violence.

It's mostly because everyone over 50 sees video games like this 
#124 Posted by Kazona (3104 posts) -

@darkdragonsoul99: That post really sounds like you are portraying America as the be-all end-all country of this world. If so, that is some astounding arrogance. The world does not revolve around the US. As a country, they have a big influence, but they are not the number one influence in this world.

Also, I absolutely fail to see how a law like this will affect game sales in any way. Do you really think that parents don't know that their kids are playing M rated games? You don't think they might walk into their son or daughter's room and see them chainsawing someone in half in Gears of War? And if they do not approve of it, do you not think that said parents would forbid them to play it?

So tell me. If a parent is ok with their child playing an M rated game now, how is a different sticker on the box going to change that?

The only thing this law states is that games rated for a mature audience can't be sold directly to minors anymore. Personally I think a law like this should exist for all forms of media entertainment. A 13 year old kid should not be able to buy certain movies, books or dvds. If their parents think they can handle it, they can buy it for them.

Pornography is freedom of speech too, so why have that regulated by law, but not the murdering and maiming of another human being? Seems kind of backwards to me.

#125 Posted by quirkwood (195 posts) -

As a person who lives in a country without a rating for adult games which as led to the refusal of classification of games such as Mortal Kombat and Fallout 3 giving control of who can buy a game to the government can only be a good thing.

It is the parents who let their kids buy violent video games who ruin it for the rest of us. Having a big fat 18 on the box allows a parent who doesn't know anything about video games to make an educated decision on whether a game is suitable for their kids or not. If people don't respect the rights they are given to make a choice or use those rights to make anything other than the right choice those rights should be taken away.

For example many people in the US have a gun just because it's their right to have one and how many people die from gunshot wounds in the US. Take away that right and less people will die when a gun goes off by accident. Just because you can own a gun doesn't mean you should.

Therefore just because you can sell a violent game to a minor doesn't mean you should and if people keep doing it that right should be taken away.

#126 Posted by TomA (2531 posts) -

I didn't know you were a Triple AAA lawyer Patrick:)

#127 Posted by Gonmog (602 posts) -

@Kazona: We are not talking about a god damn sticker!!!

And if parents hear its a LAW now, they wont be giving them to there kids as easy. Cause to the avrage person they will be thinking this, "they had to make a law to protect kids from games? there must be something backing that law up!! Games must be bad!!!".

We are talking about them making laws based on made goods. Dont you understand that if game makers think there is a chance they will lose sales on a game because it has a M or what ever rating they decide to put on it, they just wont make them?

And guess just how much money is spent on games in the US? You do the math. Gain tons more money on the big budget title by lessining the blood or cursing or what ever, or loss out on the profit for some blood.

I dont know about you but i would say fuck with the blood make sure we are getting this game into as many hands as we can!!! In other words a teen rateing.

As to that Pornography, NO FUCKING SHIT!!! That is the whole god damn point. Don't see porn in big chains any more do ya?

It keeps adding up and if it happens to games it will move to the next biggest thing, movies or games.

#128 Posted by Karvelas87 (1 posts) -
@vdortizo: Actually, our constitution doesn't need to be touched. It is not a living document. If anything we need to move back to our founding principles which we are moving away from. Read the federalist papers and the words of the founders. And yes, these people making comments about the constitution don't know their own countries history.  Pretty sad. 
Now about this court case, it's all about regulating and controlling. What's next, we won't be able to pick the game we want to play?  Ridiculous. Get the hell off our games i'd say!
#129 Posted by Gonmog (602 posts) -

@quirkwood: Ugh..... No just no. First, dont compare a Gun to a game....they are not even close to being one and the same.

second, gun shots are on a huge decline. have been for some time. And not everyone owns a gun.

And we do have a rating system for our games.

I will not call you dumb or anything of that sort. But you dont understand everything that is going on.

Parents can let there kids buy the games they want. And as of right now there is ZERO studys saying that games are making kids more violent. ZERO!!!! In fact crime is going down.

But place a law on to the games, and the avg person will think there is something wrong with games.

Sorry broken up thoughts all rolled into one.

#130 Posted by theberserker (225 posts) -

"off with her head" 
oh wait....

#131 Posted by maxB (319 posts) -

hope this happens when my little brother saw me playing mortal kombat he started ripping out peoples spines. if only these laws were in place

#132 Posted by RoninAutomaton (18 posts) -

Isn’t oral sex outlawed in some States? No one can tell me that oral sex is not practiced regardless in those States. So even if “mature” game sales to minors is prohibited--in States that choose to outlaw such games--minors will find a way to participate ... and my online gamer score will continue to be in the lower tiers.

#133 Edited by ninjalegend (469 posts) -
@Karvelas87 said:

@vdortizo: Actually, our constitution doesn't need to be touched. It is not a living document. If anything we need to move back to our founding principles which we are moving away from. Read the federalist papers and the words of the founders. And yes, these people making comments about the constitution don't know their own countries history.  Pretty sad.  Now about this court case, it's all about regulating and controlling. What's next, we won't be able to pick the game we want to play?  Ridiculous. Get the hell off our games i'd say!

Actually, sometimes it does. Check out the amendments to the constitution  and see for yourself. These should not be taken so lightly, however. And no laws should be passed that in effect circumvent the constitution. The patriot act is an example of just such a thing.
#134 Posted by Gonmog (602 posts) -

@RoninAutomaton: This not some ancient state law, this is a Nation wide law.

And this is not about kids getting the games, its about the fact....o fucking forget it.

#135 Posted by TheHT (12098 posts) -

There are a lot of fucked up people in the world, like those who would side against the EMA on this case.

#136 Posted by zacharai (88 posts) -

The first amendment covers just about all speech, from spending money to support a cause, to burning a flag, to producing/selling pornography. All of those things are "expression", which is what the first amendment covers, under today's jurisprudence. A very few exceptions have been carved out over time, and most have been rolled back a bit because they were too broad.

The basic idea (to our friends across the oceans) is that we don't trust our government to tell us what is good to read or what is bad. So many times, the books that our government tells us are going to destroy society end up being classics 30/50/100 years later. Now, this "protection" means that a lot of stupid and vulgar shit gets produced. This also means that our children are able to differentiate between the shit and the gems from fairly early on.

I'm most interested in the votes of Justices Sotomayor and Kagan. I supported the nominations of both (as well as Roberts in the previous presidency), and I believe/hope Kagan at least will support broad 1A protections, like Stevens before her. This should be a 6-3 decision in favor of overturning the law, at least.

#137 Posted by darkdragonsoul99 (137 posts) -
@Kazona: Yes the world does revolve around america at least when it comes to market share and business  we happen to have the  de facto reserve currency  after all.  To trade with your average country you first have to have american dollars. Globule trade literally revolves around the  american dollar why do you think everyone keeps propping up our crappy economy why do you think we have trillions in deficits and countries are still willing to loan us money. It's because if we go down we drag everyone else with us.   
it's also why they are suggesting a new independent   reserve currency that no country controls if that happens america will go bankrupt more then likely the same year.  I'm sure you knew non of this and just thought I was a ignorant asshole.
  shows me how much you really know about america normal stores don't carry adult only merchandise unless you count alcohol.  They wont simply put a new sticker on the games they will take them off the shelves all together.
If they classify violent video games adult only your average store will simple stop stocking the games. If that happens the majority of people wont be buying the games because they are not going to go out of their way to find them. If that happens developers are going to stop making said games because you cannot make your money back without a big enough market.   
Parents sure the fuck wont be going into a adult only shop to buy their kids a video game.   AO rated games  are not allowed on consoles as is meaning that the entire rating system would have to change for that matter. 
You need to think about this as a business man not a consumer. If you cannot make your money back are you going to put it into making your product?  Is the market in your country enough to make 60 million (halo reach) or 20 million (call of duty) back of one game? America's is and that is something developers and publishers rely on. 
#138 Posted by DoctorWelch (2763 posts) -

Why is everyone making a big deal out of this? None of this even matters at all. I am frequently asked to show ID when buying an M rated game at a gamestop and I can assure you I dont look 17 or younger. Yeah its up to the parents to decide but sometimes parents can be the stupidest people in the world. So I really dont care either way. If its not passed than nothing changes and I'm fine with the way things are now. If it is passed than kids cant buy games if they are too young and I really dont care about that either.

Now I know all you people out there are going to be all "Well its the principal of what they are doing blah blah blah" who cares. If you really think this is that bad than just wait it out until all the people that didnt grow up with games are dead or too old to make decisions about anything and if there really is a some dumb ass ignorant law that is seen as unconstitutional, than it will eventually be changed.

Maybe I dont see exactly know all the info at hand (because I dont see it as that big of a deal) but if all its doing is making it illegal for people to sell M rated games to minors, or something along those lines, than I really couldnt care either way and I dont see why anyone on either side is all up in arms over this thing.

#139 Posted by darkdragonsoul99 (137 posts) -
@quirkwood: hate to break it to you but minors usually can't buy M rated games and M rated games do have a big fat 18 on them.  A minor is more likely to be able to buy alcohol or porn then a m rated game. 
#140 Posted by YukoAsho (2166 posts) -
@RoninAutomaton said:

Isn’t oral sex outlawed in some States? No one can tell me that oral sex is not practiced regardless in those States. So even if “mature” game sales to minors is prohibited--in States that choose to outlaw such games--minors will find a way to participate ... and my online gamer score will continue to be in the lower tiers.

There was an interesting Supreme Court case in '03 regarding "deviant sexual behavior" by adults.  IIRC, someone made a false call saying that a dude's house was getting robbed when in reality two guys were screwing in it.  Texas law stated that homosexual conduct was punishable by fine, I think it was $100.  The court ruled in favor of the couple, since the law was nothing more than harassment.
#141 Edited by Gonmog (602 posts) -

@DoctorWelch: And a other one. Just read a few of the comments. It is a big deal. As the only other thing in the US, free speech, that has laws on it is porno. And that is seen...in dirty ass shops people run in and out of as fast as then can.

M rated games may be headed in that same area, Walmart may just not carry them. And If wallmart does not carry them, then makers will not make them. PS Walmart sucks ass but they are why we still have DVD cases for our games so they can effect this.

#142 Posted by YukoAsho (2166 posts) -
@Karvelas87 said:
@vdortizo: Actually, our constitution doesn't need to be touched. It is not a living document. If anything we need to move back to our founding principles which we are moving away from. Read the federalist papers and the words of the founders. And yes, these people making comments about the constitution don't know their own countries history.  Pretty sad.  Now about this court case, it's all about regulating and controlling. What's next, we won't be able to pick the game we want to play?  Ridiculous. Get the hell off our games i'd say!
In many ways, I agree with you.  The Constitution already has a system by which modifications are made - Amendments.  However, politicians are so scared of pissing off extremists in their parties that the justices have to play lawmaker by loose interpretation and divination.  It's damned pathetic on all sides, and a sign that the country is in decline.
#143 Posted by Revenant86 (156 posts) -

oh jez, ifthis passed we might regress back to the prohibition era! but instead of gangsters shooting up people for moonshine,it'll be for videogames!  they better see the light, fingers crossed duders

#144 Edited by darkdragonsoul99 (137 posts) -
@Gonmog: Oh shit I just thought of something? Is this really the same law as porn ? if so wont it be punishable by fine to let a minor even see a violent  video game? Parents could be fined for participating  in the corruption of a minor.
#145 Posted by Gonmog (602 posts) -

@darkdragonsoul99: That is the same road they are trying to go down. They want to make M rated games in the same vain as Porn. How this works im not sure. But yeah there we are.

#146 Posted by MormonWarrior (2714 posts) -

The wording of "violent video games" concerns me, because that's a huge slippery slope. M-rated games to anyone below 17 should already be the case. I'm kinda surprised it isn't. That's the case with R-rated movies, right?

#147 Posted by darkdragonsoul99 (137 posts) -
@Revenant86: revert back who ever said we weren't in a prohibition area right now?  We reverts back in the 70s and have been there ever sense.  

Ever hear of the war on drugs yeah they changed the wording but it is the same law. Gangs are gunning down people in the streets as we speak over drugs instead of moonshine.  By the way nice try being hyperbolic but your not far from the truth banning anything leads  to a black market and black markets lead to people getting killed. 
#148 Posted by ninjalegend (469 posts) -
@YukoAsho: Curious, how do you feel about the loose interpretation and divination made by the courts that fly in the face of the constitution. I don't think two wrongs make a right. It is up to the people to strongly voice their opinions and have things changed correctly, or not at all. That's my take.
#149 Posted by darkdragonsoul99 (137 posts) -
@MormonWarrior: No such law there is one about x rated files though IE porn.  
R rated is simply a store policy the same policy they have with a M rated game  now don't sell it to them without a of age adult present.  
#150 Posted by Revenant86 (156 posts) -
@darkdragonsoul99: yes  i know about the war on drugs, but what i meant to say is that the videogame gangs would be more like the mafia than unorganized street gangs, rich white people would fund them and give them weapons.