Is the California Law that would fine retailers for selling minors violent video games constitutional?

Hey guys, I know there are some threads on this already, but they didn't really get to the heart of what I was wondering.  I know that since this is a video game enthusiast forum board, it's unlikely that anyone will support the law.  However, I would like to know what your argument is against it, and whether or not you actually think this is unconstitutional, or if it's just a stupid law to have on the books in general (and why you think that).  I have to do this assignment for an English class research project, so any feedback would be much appreciated. 
  
EDIT: Also, if you do not mind, please indicate whether you yourself are a minor, (only if you're comfortable doing so). 

Thanks guys, 
~Seraphim

No, tobacco and Alcahol are harmful and unlawful for minors, Movie theaters aren't allowed to sell movie tickets to minors without a parent or guardian present to mature rated movies, It should be the same with mature rated games.

Well the supreme court will be deciding this so I have to say I dunno.

I don't see how this is unconstitutional... I'd say that this isn't that big of a factor since kids can just get 17 year olds to buy the game for them or with them or even their parents. 
 
I'd say go ahead and bar the sale of M rated games to kids and treat it just like R rated movies are.

I don't know if it's constitutional or not, but in the UK we have strict age limits on games and most other things. I don't think there is anything wrong with it.

I want it to become illegal so we can get some back alley gaming speakeasies going.

It's unconstitutional.  That's my opinion, and that's the legal reading of every court that has heard this case so far.  I'm not a minor, if that helps your project.

" I don't see how this is unconstitutional... I'd say that this isn't that big of a factor since kids can just get 17 year olds to buy the game for them or with them or even their parents.   I'd say go ahead and bar the sale of M rated games to kids and treat it just like R rated movies are. "

There's such a law in five provinces up here in Canada, so it can't be too bad. Also, in BC the retailers just decided on their own to not sell M-rated games to minors.

I voted "No", but I'm not American. Your constitution is pretty amusing, though. Its certain feels morally ambiguous (to say the least) to sell minors inappropriate content.

" No, tobacco and Alcahol are harmful and unlawful for minors, Movie theaters aren't allowed to sell movie tickets to minors without a parent or guardian present to mature rated movies, It should be the same with mature rated games. "

Completely unconstitutional.  Content-based restrictions - laws banning speech on the basis of what is being said - are almost always unconstitutional, except in very limited situations like obscenity or speech directly inciting violence.  No difference here.
 
As for why this specific law really harms the freedom of speech, by banning stores from selling these items to minors, it discourages stores from stocking them and developers from making them, in creating a "chilling effect" which will discourage developers from speaking about certain topics.  Even if the lawmakers don't intend to do so, developers will be restricted in their ability to speak or tell stories about topics like death, war, or violence because they don't want to run afoul of this law.

Didn't vote since I'm not American, but I will say this, the same law has been in effect in the UK for many years and it's not a big deal. Guys behind the counter will get the sack if they are caught selling to minors, retailers can be fined. Like alchohol and cigarette, if a kid wants them, they get their parents to buy it for them.

Law or not this isn't a big deal. Stores will still have policies in place that prevent minors from buying games. Angry mothers are all we need to keep this in check.

" No, tobacco and Alcahol are harmful and unlawful for minors, Movie theaters aren't allowed to sell movie tickets to minors without a parent or guardian present to mature rated movies, It should be the same with mature rated games. "

I don't know if its unconsitutional or not, so i can only state if i think it's right or wrong to fine retailers. I am 21 and live in sweden, and i have been able to buy 18+ games since i was ten years old or something.  The age rating of a game should be more of a recommendation than a law. I don't know if fining a retailer is a solution, but i definately think it is wrong if a retailer sells a violent game to a minor when a parent isn't present. In the end it should always be up to a childs parent whether or not to grant the freedom to play adult games. It also depends on how young the child is, and how far up on the scale the game is rated. I guess it is wishfull thinking that people should just act out of common sense, instead of having all of these laws.

Of course, the constitution has fuck all to do with anything. Our society has allowed and even contributed to the erosion of the Constitution for decades -- especially in the past decade and has largely become a joke. "it's un-Constitutional" means jack shit when it's all really just mob-rule.

It should be against the law just because it means we're stopping dipshits behind a counter from being such dipshits. 
 
Look, I'm all for "freedom of speech" and "no more censorship", but I'm also of the sound mind and body that parents need to be held responsible in more situations.  This law will fine the retailers if they act stupid, and in turn, it will lead to them making the parents more aware of what the fuck their kids are doing...whether it just be in the games that they play or overall in life. 
 
I look at the big picture of the law, not the immediate idea that "ZOMG OUR FREEDOMZ R TAKEN AWAYZ!" like everyone else seems to do. 
 
If it takes retailers being fined over selling a video game that has clearly been labeled as a game recommended for 17+ in order to make them say "hey, your parent needs to be aware of this purchase", which in turn means that the game companies and retailers aren't going to get bullshit lawsuits from (X) parents because (X) kid decided to blame (Y) game for his shooting spree at school and that mom & dad not explaining the fucking difference between reality and fantasy to their child is...then fuck man, I understand the reasoning in more ways than one.  HOLY RUN-ON SENTENCE, BATMAN!!! 
 
@Branthog said:

"There is absolutely no reasonable justification for the government and the rest of society to deem what is appropriate for a given person to watch, play, read, or listen to."

" No, tobacco and Alcahol are harmful and unlawful for minors, Movie theaters aren't allowed to sell movie tickets to minors without a parent or guardian present to mature rated movies, It should be the same with mature rated games. "

" @Branthog said:

Of course, the constitution has fuck all to do with anything. Our society has allowed and even contributed to the erosion of the Constitution for decades -- especially in the past decade and has largely become a joke. "it's un-Constitutional" means jack shit when it's all really just mob-rule.

I don't really see how you can say that.  Free speech is more protected than ever by the current Supreme Court.  If this law doesn't get struck down in a simple unanimous ruling I'll be very surprised.  Say what you will about political grandstanding, but the Constitution and Supreme Court in protecting rights has done pretty well for itself in most areas. "

" It should be against the law just because it means we're stopping dipshits behind a counter from being such dipshits. 
 
Look, I'm all for "freedom of speech" and "no more censorship", but I'm also of the sound mind and body that parents need to be held responsible in more situations.  This law will fine the retailers if they act stupid, and in turn, it will lead to them making the parents more aware of what the fuck their kids are doing...whether it just be in the games that they play or overall in life. 
 
I look at the big picture of the law, not the immediate idea that "ZOMG OUR FREEDOMZ R TAKEN AWAYZ!" like everyone else seems to do. 
 
If it takes retailers being fined over selling a video game that has clearly been labeled as a game recommended for 17+ in order to make them say "hey, your parent needs to be aware of this purchase", which in turn means that the game companies and retailers aren't going to get bullshit lawsuits from (X) parents because (X) kid decided to blame (Y) game for his shooting spree at school and that mom & dad not explaining the fucking difference between reality and fantasy to their child is...then fuck man, I understand the reasoning in more ways than one.  HOLY RUN-ON SENTENCE, BATMAN!!! 
 
@Branthog said:

"There is absolutely no reasonable justification for the government and the rest of society to deem what is appropriate for a given person to watch, play, read, or listen to."

There's no justification for one body of people to judge, but it's alright for other bodies like the ESRB, MPAA, and RIAA to judge?  What, because they can't fine someone for being fucking retarded?  Are you saying that it should be easily accessible for an 8-year-old to walk into Gamestop and pick up a game that involves murder, bloodshed, sex, profanity, and everything else?  Who are YOU to judge that they should?  If it's your kid, then yeah, you've got the right to judge it.  If you aren't, then you need to make sure there is accountability in place. "

lol I just woke up, and I realized I clicked no before...as in its not constitutional.  you should have said Unconstitutional.  And yes I was wrong but right about alcahol and tobacco, and how laws get made in those cases is this same process so its not unconstitutional.
 
@christonIce
why is it every thing I've seen you post, you come across as the worlds largest  Douche? I don't know why, but Every thing I read from you seems to have this implied tone of upper brow, belief in your own superiority And Condescending manner...I think its because you often post more then you need too, you could have replied to me with about only 10% of what you said. sorry.