That's great to hear
Supreme Court Strikes Down California Law
I wonder if Leland Yee will stop wasting taxpayer money to wage pointless wars against industries and will get back to actual governing now.
Yeah, I know he won't either.
@Gremmel said:
Living in an actual free society (Sweden) where women don't get arrested for having miss-carriages and where you can walk around in the streets without at any time having to "provide papers", I'm not really sure America still knows what freedom actually is. On a side note, when I as younger I yearned to go to USA one day, but seeing how you've treated foreigners over the past ten years or even your own citizens I'm actually to afraid to go there now. Imprisoning people without trials is such a front to humanity it's staggering just to mention one thing.
However selling Saints Row 3 to a unsupervised five year old is borderline child abuse I think. You actually don't develop real human sympathy or the ability to differentiate between right and wrong until you're around nine, some even later at around 12-13 years of age. You can't sell drugs (whatever you got that's legal) and guns to them so why this is a good thing I'm not getting.
That Americans freak out more about sex than actual violence in media is just silly to the point of sad.
Just to clarify I'm not saying any five years old kid shouldn't be allowed to play Saint's Row 3, but without parents/guardian there to actually teach them what morality is, the least the government can do, is to not allow those games to be sold to *minors.
*Appropriate age limitations not based on a politicians whim but actual current (non biased) psychological studies.
You mean the same free Sweeden that deems Manga child pornography and will fine you for possessing it as it would for actual child pornography?
Victory is ours!! Well at least for now anyway.... I'm glad at least most of the Supreme Court believe Video Games are just like Books, Movies, and the Radio.
What I wonder of the people who believe Video Games are just as "bad" as pornography which of them actually plays games and what games are they using to make this comparison?
Surely they can't be still using the Age Old example of GTA??? ><''
Damn you know those California representatives pushing this bill feel stupid when even the Supreme Court start making fun of them. Honestly, leave us the hell alone. One wacko who kills someone because he can't play video games does not define an entire group of people. I thought we were supposed to be over stereotyping...
@Gremmel
Leaving anti-American commentary aside, I feel the need to clarify a flaw in your (and a couple other people's) logic: video games are not being sold en-mass to minors. The fact is that the ESRB has been found, time and time again, to be the most effective self-regulating board in America (including the MPAA) of keeping age inappropriate material out of the hands of minors. Retailer-specific policies regulate who they sell video games for, and on an individual basis identify paying customers as being age appropriate. This is desirable over government regulation for a whole slew of reasons, chief among them that it gives the creators of the games the freedom to express themselves without the fear of being labeled obscene by their legislators. Keep in mind that even with government intervention, the AO rating from the ESRB (again, a self-regulating independent body) is the effective kiss of death for any game. THAT is where truly obscene material, pornographic or otherwise, ends up and the system has worked rather effectively for everyone involved.
Glad to get a official word on this. M rated games can live on. Now if you excuse me, I'll be buying a copy of Shadows of the damned without a problem.
This is the best write up I have found about this so far. Good job.
Oh, and to all the crazy people who thought this thing would pass, "I told you so".
People could have just gotten their parents or someone older to buy a game for them if this had passed through. It's not a big deal to me. Maybe because I'm 24.
I don't understand how this law passing would've been a bad thing. Most European countries have laws in place that don't allow shops to sell games to minors if the game is rated M, which I can agree with. The parents are free to buy any games (even violent ones) for their children though, because ultimately it should be the parents responsibility what their children play.
Can 10 year old kids in the US go to R-rated films by themselves? If not then I don't see what would be wrong with limiting kids getting access to violent video games as well without their parents allowing it.
exactly the industry is great at regulating the content that's released on various platforms. Nintendo and Sony DO NOT allow any Adult Only games to published and retails also have similar policy so developers have a ceiling in which they can not touch in terms of obscene content, while the movie industry and music industry can release UNRATED, UNCUT, DIRECTORS CUT to retails and there really much of established policy that prevents underaged kids from aquire such content in stores.@Gremmel
Leaving anti-American commentary aside, I feel the need to clarify a flaw in your (and a couple other people's) logic: video games are not being sold en-mass to minors. The fact is that the ESRB has been found, time and time again, to be the most effective self-regulating board in America (including the MPAA) of keeping age inappropriate material out of the hands of minors. Retailer-specific policies regulate who they sell video games for, and on an individual basis identify paying customers as being age appropriate. This is desirable over government regulation for a whole slew of reasons, chief among them that it gives the creators of the games the freedom to express themselves without the fear of being labeled obscene by their legislators. Keep in mind that even with government intervention, the AO rating from the ESRB (again, a self-regulating independent body) is the effective kiss of death for any game. THAT is where truly obscene material, pornographic or otherwise, ends up and the system has worked rather effectively for everyone involved.
ESRB never should of used tiger woods for an ad campaign
@Kyodra said:
I don't understand how this law passing would've been a bad thing. Most European countries have laws in place that don't allow shops to sell games to minors if the game is rated M, which I can agree with. The parents are free to buy any games (even violent ones) for their children though, because ultimately it should be the parents responsibility what their children play.
Can 10 year old kids in the US go to R-rated films by themselves? If not then I don't see what would be wrong with limiting kids getting access to violent video games as well without their parents allowing it.
The U.S. already prohibits the sale of M-rated games to minors. This proposed law would have made it a crime for parents to purchase M-rated games for minors entirely.
Rated-R movies work the same way. You can watch it if a parent or guardian is there.
So this means I'll still be hearing whiny brats screaming at me while playing Gears Of War? Great...
"In fact, the court found it curious California would not include other kinds of media under this law." Indeed, while I support the court's decision, perhaps restricting Ayn Rand's works to 34 and older would lessen the number of selfish a-holes running around town.
Maybe Leland Yee will finally quit wasting his time and Californians' tax dollars on anti-game legislation.
@Cirdain said:
Supreme Court slapped California like it's their bitch.
California is the Supreme Court's bitch. Every state is.
Please Log In to post.
Log in to comment