Export thread
Supreme Court to rule on violent video game sales to kids
#1
Chibibar
Chibibar
http://beta.news.yahoo.com/court-rule-violent-video-game-sales-kids-062656289.html
Seriously?? What ever happen to let the parents decide? I thought stores are not allow to sell games to kids without parent consent (most are purchase by parents anyways) so this is the parents fault.
update: http://beta.news.yahoo.com/court-calif-cant-ban-violent-video-game-sales-143011848.html
Looks like the rule is overturn. In the last paragraph, it basically trying to say that parents should regulate their kids
Seriously?? What ever happen to let the parents decide? I thought stores are not allow to sell games to kids without parent consent (most are purchase by parents anyways) so this is the parents fault.
update: http://beta.news.yahoo.com/court-calif-cant-ban-violent-video-game-sales-143011848.html
Looks like the rule is overturn. In the last paragraph, it basically trying to say that parents should regulate their kids
#2
Dave
Dave
You have to set the bar somewhere. Do you want hardcore porn being sold to kids? Do you want 10 year olds to be able to get into R rated movies? I think it's appropriate to have some lines, but also think that the ratings for movies, music and games are too arbitrary to fall under any of these age standards.
#3
Fun Size
Fun Size
Dear Dave,
I do not understand what you just said. At all.
Sincerely,
Fun Size
I do not understand what you just said. At all.
Sincerely,
Fun Size
#4
Dave
Dave
Let me say it a different way.
There needs to be some sort of line where we prevent kids from getting materials which we as a society deem harmful or beyond their grasp to understand. Examples of this would be movies that are of mature nature, pornography, music with explicit lyrics, violent/sexual video games (such as GTA or God of War).
Having said that, the current rating systems (G-NC17 for movies, etc) are too arbitrary and do not necessarily represent the current state of social acceptable norms, thus should be re-examined and changed.
tl;dr: Ratings are good, but we need different rating systems.
There needs to be some sort of line where we prevent kids from getting materials which we as a society deem harmful or beyond their grasp to understand. Examples of this would be movies that are of mature nature, pornography, music with explicit lyrics, violent/sexual video games (such as GTA or God of War).
Having said that, the current rating systems (G-NC17 for movies, etc) are too arbitrary and do not necessarily represent the current state of social acceptable norms, thus should be re-examined and changed.
tl;dr: Ratings are good, but we need different rating systems.
#5
Fun Size
Fun Size
See, I don't know that I agree. I think the existing ratings, while somewhat arbitrary, give responsible parents a baseline to make decisions, which is really all they should be doing. It also seems like businesses self-regulating (keeping the younglings away from movies or games they shouldn't have) seems to work for the most part, again in cases where the parents are being responsible.
Most importantly, I have a tough time imagining the government coming up with a better or more effective system.
tl;dr: Take your ADHD meds. We're not writing that much. Sheesh.
Most importantly, I have a tough time imagining the government coming up with a better or more effective system.
tl;dr: Take your ADHD meds. We're not writing that much. Sheesh.
#6
strawman
strawman
The question is whether there are some forms of video entertainment where the state should limit sales directly to children.
In the same way that a parent can buy cigarettes and alcohol and give them to their child, they would still be able to buy violent/sexual video games and provide them to their child in the privacy of their own home.
This ruling would only affect whether a shopkeeper has the right to sell a violent game depicting murder, rape, etc to children.
So - the parents are not taken out of the equation. If anything, this law would actually require parents to regulate their child's intake of such video games. If their child wants to play it, the parent has to buy it for them.
Keep in mind that we're not just talking about 16 year olds here - this would also affect 5 year olds. I know 5 year olds that would look at the cool cover of GTA with the shiny car on it and think it was a car game of some sort, and want to buy it.
If you think that 5 year olds should be able to buy and play such games without the knowledge of their parents, then you would attack this law altogether.
If you think that every teenager above a certain age should be able to buy such games without their parents, then you don't think the law is wrong, just that the age limit is wrong.
If you think parents should be involved in whether their children buy violent games, then you shouldn't have a problem with this law.
In the same way that a parent can buy cigarettes and alcohol and give them to their child, they would still be able to buy violent/sexual video games and provide them to their child in the privacy of their own home.
This ruling would only affect whether a shopkeeper has the right to sell a violent game depicting murder, rape, etc to children.
So - the parents are not taken out of the equation. If anything, this law would actually require parents to regulate their child's intake of such video games. If their child wants to play it, the parent has to buy it for them.
Keep in mind that we're not just talking about 16 year olds here - this would also affect 5 year olds. I know 5 year olds that would look at the cool cover of GTA with the shiny car on it and think it was a car game of some sort, and want to buy it.
If you think that 5 year olds should be able to buy and play such games without the knowledge of their parents, then you would attack this law altogether.
If you think that every teenager above a certain age should be able to buy such games without their parents, then you don't think the law is wrong, just that the age limit is wrong.
If you think parents should be involved in whether their children buy violent games, then you shouldn't have a problem with this law.
#7
Hylian
Hylian
I think that it should be the parents job to decide if the kids should be able to play a mature rated game or not. Just like I think it is the parents decision on whether or not the kids see an R rated movie. Now my parents where over protective in a lot of areas (throwing away my comic becuase if you hold them to the light the characters look like naked silhouettes , No watch X-men cause it was demonic, etc) but they still would let me watch an occasional R rated film before I was the proper age becuase they felt I was mature enough to see it. Sure they did there research first and than decided whether it was right for me to see ( granted for some reason they felt violence was fine but swearing or nudity and it was suddenly evil but that is a completely different topic) But when it came to my games they didn't really bother to try and understand them. Which I was grateful for becuase as I stated earlier they tried filtering my childhood in order to protect me. Now some protection is good but other times it is not but I am getting off topic again. Despite some issues I think it still should rely on parents who do their research and than decide if a game is correct for the kid. Of course that whole thing falls apart if you have overly protective parents like mine but over all it would help the situation if parents just would stop and think before just buying something. Basically the issue is convoluted and messy but I don't think the government needs to step in.
#8
Eriol
Eriol
I think it's not up to the "state" (in any sense of that word) to determine which materials should or should not fall into kids' hands. Even beyond where this ruling goes IMO. If you don't know what your kids are doing, that's YOUR fault, and not up to the state to provide protections.
On the other hand, I do think that ratings systems should be mandatory, but only from an informative perspective. Kind of like seat belt laws actually, in that manufacturers should be required to install them, but IMO it's an infringement on your personal liberty to require you to use them. Same idea in that every game should be rated, but nowhere should be enforcing who it's sold too.
And btw, the law as-written was stupid too. It would have made it illegal to sell to a minor any depiction of killing anything human-like. So think of what would be illegal: Contra (8-bit or not wouldn't matter), just about any fantasy/RPG out there, etc. The law was beyond stupid, but I believe in the principal upheld too.
On the other hand, I do think that ratings systems should be mandatory, but only from an informative perspective. Kind of like seat belt laws actually, in that manufacturers should be required to install them, but IMO it's an infringement on your personal liberty to require you to use them. Same idea in that every game should be rated, but nowhere should be enforcing who it's sold too.
And btw, the law as-written was stupid too. It would have made it illegal to sell to a minor any depiction of killing anything human-like. So think of what would be illegal: Contra (8-bit or not wouldn't matter), just about any fantasy/RPG out there, etc. The law was beyond stupid, but I believe in the principal upheld too.
#9
Fun Size
Fun Size
And like tobacco and alcohol, that parent could be prosecuted for endangering a minor then?In the same way that a parent can buy cigarettes and alcohol and give them to their child, they would still be able to buy violent/sexual video games and provide them to their child in the privacy of their own home.
#10
strawman
For my part, it's a balance. If every parent were perfect, I wouldn't have a problem with government taking a hands-off approach. However there are too many terrible parents and kids getting screwed up that I can agree some limits should be set to prevent extreme mis-parenting.
The nice thing about tobacco and alcohol is that you can objectively measure the detrimental effects on a developing human. We can prove that parents or peers who provide these and other substances to children are damaging the children physically, and that the children might not have the ability to say no. So there is obvious evidence that the community is better off as a whole when parents are restricted from providing these materials to children.
We don't have an easy way to measure mental/social damage that might occur when young children spend their formative years playing games which simulate murder, rape, and other socially undesirable acts. We do know that children play-act social situations in order to construct a framework that allows them to better understand social situations they will go into as adults. A child playing GTA for a few minutes once at a friends house likely has little impact. A child playing through all episodes of GTA for a few hours a week over a year or two at age 4-6 might be more impacted by the game.
So, no, it's not like tobacco and alcohol either legally, or in terms of measurable physiological effects.
However, it appears that what you're saying is that parents shouldn't be involved at all - that if a 5 year old walks into a store with cash in hand, they should be able to walk out with the latest installment GTA, no questions asked.
If that is your position, I disagree with you. I believe the store should tell the kid to get their parent to buy it for them.
This law, if well written, would only make sure the parent is in the loop - not attempt to tell the parent how to raise their child. I haven't read the bill - it sounds like it may reach further than that.
strawman
I haven't read the bill, but from what I know this particular bill only affects sales.And like tobacco and alcohol, that parent could be prosecuted for endangering a minor then?
For my part, it's a balance. If every parent were perfect, I wouldn't have a problem with government taking a hands-off approach. However there are too many terrible parents and kids getting screwed up that I can agree some limits should be set to prevent extreme mis-parenting.
The nice thing about tobacco and alcohol is that you can objectively measure the detrimental effects on a developing human. We can prove that parents or peers who provide these and other substances to children are damaging the children physically, and that the children might not have the ability to say no. So there is obvious evidence that the community is better off as a whole when parents are restricted from providing these materials to children.
We don't have an easy way to measure mental/social damage that might occur when young children spend their formative years playing games which simulate murder, rape, and other socially undesirable acts. We do know that children play-act social situations in order to construct a framework that allows them to better understand social situations they will go into as adults. A child playing GTA for a few minutes once at a friends house likely has little impact. A child playing through all episodes of GTA for a few hours a week over a year or two at age 4-6 might be more impacted by the game.
So, no, it's not like tobacco and alcohol either legally, or in terms of measurable physiological effects.
However, it appears that what you're saying is that parents shouldn't be involved at all - that if a 5 year old walks into a store with cash in hand, they should be able to walk out with the latest installment GTA, no questions asked.
If that is your position, I disagree with you. I believe the store should tell the kid to get their parent to buy it for them.
This law, if well written, would only make sure the parent is in the loop - not attempt to tell the parent how to raise their child. I haven't read the bill - it sounds like it may reach further than that.
#11
Fun Size
Fun Size
No, I think the parent's should be involved. I'm just not sold that the government should be intervening. Last I checked, and admittedly this is through the ESRB so I'm sure it's a little one sided, the vast majority of retail stores currently refuse to sell games to kids based on ratings, just the way movie theaters currently refuse to admit minors to R movies.
My concern is that this "well if you care about kids being raised properly" argument has been applied to a lot of censorship issues, and these laws don't typically deal in subtleties, so the situation I described above where I get fined or go to jail because I gave my emotionally mature kid a game they wanted and I vetted isn't out of the question.
My concern is that this "well if you care about kids being raised properly" argument has been applied to a lot of censorship issues, and these laws don't typically deal in subtleties, so the situation I described above where I get fined or go to jail because I gave my emotionally mature kid a game they wanted and I vetted isn't out of the question.
#12
Eriol
Eriol
It's not the government's job to protect children from themselves, or from "violent media" either. Occasionally it's their role to protect them from their parents (abuse), and of course to protect them from random others (like everybody else), but if a law's purpose is "because some parents don't do job X, Y, or Z well enough" then it's a bad law.
Governments should not assume the role or responsibilities of parents.
Governments should not assume the role or responsibilities of parents.
#13
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
I opposed the law for one reason and one reason only: It held video games to a standard that no other form of media was being held to. If your going to declare violence off limits in games, then it would only be fair to do likewise with movies, books, music, art, etc...
#14
strawman
The gov't is responsible for protecting children, if need be, from their parent's poor choices where those choices endanger the child or society.
But again (and again, and again, as I seem to keep repeating myself) this law doesn't protect children from their parents, nor does it take the place of parents, nor does it force parents to do or not do something particular with their children.
This law prevent retailers - who's primary goal is to make cash fast - from selling possibly inappropriate content to minors.
I'm not defending the law per-se - I haven't read it, and I don't particularly care.
I'm trying to help people here understand that, if anything, all it does is make parents more aware of what their children buy. And it doesn't really even do that - it has very little to do with parenting, or controlling parents, or moderating parent-child interactions. All it does is say that retailers can't sell possibly violent entertainment directly to children.
Added at: 13:54
So the distinction is that retailers aren't specifically prohibited from sales of pornography to minors - but the more inclusive law of providing it to them through any means covers it, similar to alcohol and tobacco. In other words, if the law says it's bad for them, it should always say it's bad for them, not just at the cash register.
If anything, the bill will probably go down on that point. Either the law should say children shouldn't have it at all, or it should say that the gov't doesn't control it. This law attempts an inbetween position that is legally untenable.
strawman
I don't see the distinction, except as a matter of semantics.protect them from their parents
...
because some parents don't do job X, Y, or Z well enough
The gov't is responsible for protecting children, if need be, from their parent's poor choices where those choices endanger the child or society.
But again (and again, and again, as I seem to keep repeating myself) this law doesn't protect children from their parents, nor does it take the place of parents, nor does it force parents to do or not do something particular with their children.
This law prevent retailers - who's primary goal is to make cash fast - from selling possibly inappropriate content to minors.
I'm not defending the law per-se - I haven't read it, and I don't particularly care.
I'm trying to help people here understand that, if anything, all it does is make parents more aware of what their children buy. And it doesn't really even do that - it has very little to do with parenting, or controlling parents, or moderating parent-child interactions. All it does is say that retailers can't sell possibly violent entertainment directly to children.
Added at: 13:54
They already do it for pornography - but the rule is slightly different, in that you can't provide such material to a child, regardless of whether it's sold or given. Currently no laws are in place preventing sale of rated R movies to minors, though most stores adopted a policy of not selling such materials to minors - mostly due to liability. Even if there's no law against it the sale of such materials, retailers can successfully be sued for something akin to "contributing to the dilinquency of a minor."I opposed the law for one reason and one reason only: It held video games to a standard that no other form of media was being held to. If your going to declare violence off limits in games, then it would only be fair to do likewise with movies, books, music, art, etc...
So the distinction is that retailers aren't specifically prohibited from sales of pornography to minors - but the more inclusive law of providing it to them through any means covers it, similar to alcohol and tobacco. In other words, if the law says it's bad for them, it should always say it's bad for them, not just at the cash register.
If anything, the bill will probably go down on that point. Either the law should say children shouldn't have it at all, or it should say that the gov't doesn't control it. This law attempts an inbetween position that is legally untenable.
#15
Chibibar
Chibibar
don't forget the news!!! there are so much violence on the news! and TV shows!
#16
strawman
strawman
BTW, the supreme court struck the law down:
http://techland.time.com/2011/06/27...games-qualify-for-first-amendment-protection/
Interesting excerpts from the above linked article:
So all y'all can rest easy - this court's not going to let such laws stand until the negative impact on children and society is objectively significant. Given that it was a 7-2 decision, and that the two dissenters came from across the political aisle, it's not likely to change with the changing of the executive or legislative branches.
http://techland.time.com/2011/06/27...games-qualify-for-first-amendment-protection/
Interesting excerpts from the above linked article:
In a 7-2 decision with an opinion written by Justice Antonin Scalia, the Supreme Court effectively declared today (PDF file) that video games can be afforded the same constitutional protections as visual art, film, music and other forms of expression.
...
Throughout the text of the decision, the court found that the California law was too broad as written and couldn't satisfy the "strict scrutiny" legal principle. It also held that that video games, though different in form, still communicate ideas as other media do:
Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world).
The Court also appears to bat away the worst fears–games engendering violent behavior– that spurred on Yee's legislation and made it a reality:
Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media. Since California has declined to restrict those other media, e.g., Saturday morning cartoons, its video-game regulation is wildly underinclusive, raising serious doubts about whether the State is pursuing the interest it invokes or is instead disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint....
Footnote 4 of the decision might be the most colorful and illustrative example of the thinking behind the Brown v. EMA opinion. In it, Scalia links today's ruling to the landmark 1948 Winters v. New York decision and offers:
Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat. But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones. Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy… Even if we can see in them “nothing of any possible value to society . . . , they are as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature."
It's interesting that Scalia invokes Mortal Kombat as a particular example. (You think he knows that it was banned in Australia?)
So all y'all can rest easy - this court's not going to let such laws stand until the negative impact on children and society is objectively significant. Given that it was a 7-2 decision, and that the two dissenters came from across the political aisle, it's not likely to change with the changing of the executive or legislative branches.
#17
@Li3n
@Li3n
BTW, the supreme court struck the law down:
http://techland.time.com/2011/06/27...games-qualify-for-first-amendment-protection/
#18
Chibibar
Chibibar
heh. I did edit it and put the link in earlier.
Basically it falls back to the parents.
Basically it falls back to the parents.
#19
strawman
Even if it had gone through the parents would have lost nothing. Nothing "falls" back to parents - nothing changed for them.
strawman
Basically it falls back to the parents.
Even if it had gone through the parents would have lost nothing. Nothing "falls" back to parents - nothing changed for them.
#20
Chibibar
now if it makes sale of "excessive violence" game to minor illegal (i.e. like selling cigarette or alcohol) then it might be different.
Chibibar
Well, the law originally putting fine and punishment toward the vendor. This essentially allow the government to dictate what game can be play by children instead of the parents. I didn't read the actual law so I'm guessing.
Even if it had gone through the parents would have lost nothing. Nothing "falls" back to parents - nothing changed for them.
now if it makes sale of "excessive violence" game to minor illegal (i.e. like selling cigarette or alcohol) then it might be different.
#21
Chad Sexington
Chad Sexington
This is especially true of film ratings. The MPAA seems so freaking arbitrary and random... argh. Things that should not at all be considered appropriate are slapped with a PG-13 but 3 seconds of side boob LET'S GET THE R ON THERE ASAP. An interesting, if biased, documentary is This Film is Not Yet Rated. I highly recommend it. Very interesting as to how content is considered and judged.tl;dr: Ratings are good, but we need different rating systems.
#22
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
Your arguing a different point than the one that I made. Pornography covers ALL mediums: You can't providemagazines, videos, or games that are pornographic to kids... but you also can't provide pornographic audio cds or books. It's consistent across the spectrum of mediums. The proposed violence standards were different because they would apply ONLY to video games and nothing else. Kids would still be allowed to buy all the violent cds, books, and others things they wanted. It was an unfair standard.They already do it for pornography - but the rule is slightly different, in that you can't provide such material to a child, regardless of whether it's sold or given.
#23
GasBandit
GasBandit
"Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy… Even if we can see in them “nothing of any possible value to society . . . , they are as much entitled to the protection of free speech as the best of literature."
Holy balls, did he just say the 1st amendment applies to broadcast media? So much for the Fairness Doctrine!
Holy balls, did he just say the 1st amendment applies to broadcast media? So much for the Fairness Doctrine!
#24
Covar
Covar
3 things:
- The Law was vaguely written, I have seen valid arguments as to why Super Mario Bros meets the criteria for violence listed and should be banned.
- WTF is a 5 year old doing walking into a gaming shop by himself/herself (way to discriminate against female gamers) without parents there. Buying games is the least of the problems there. Horrible strawman.
- The Divine Comedy is a poorly written political attack hackjob written by a self-righteous arrogant douche.
#25
AshburnerX
AshburnerX
And Shakespeare was a hack job, who's work was the equivalent of a Michael Bay film at the time, while cribbing off the works of greater writers than he. That doesn't change the fact that both of their works have stood the test of time.3 things:
The Divine Comedy is a poorly written political attack hackjob written by a self-righteous arrogant douche.
#26
@Li3n
And you forgot his obsession with a dead woman he only saw a few times around town.
@Li3n
Those are always the best works in literature...The Divine Comedy is a poorly written political attack hackjob written by a self-righteous arrogant douche.
And you forgot his obsession with a dead woman he only saw a few times around town.
#27
Tress
Tress
Here's my local newspaper's editorial on the subject:
IN STRIKING down California's ban on the sale of violent video games to minors, the U.S. Supreme Court on Monday reaffirmed that this nation's protection of free speech must extend to expressions of disturbing, and even repugnant, ideas -- even when it involves our children.
For if we attempt to censor based on what makes us uncomfortable, we will narrow the discourse and cut off the open flow of ideas that are at the core of our free society. While there have been narrow exceptions carved out -- for obscenity, for example -- the California law demonstrated the slippery slope we could cascade down if we expand speech restrictions based on content of the message.
The California law would have prohibited sale of "violent video games" to minors. The act covers a game that "includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being, if those acts are depicted" in a manner that "appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors," that is "patently offensive," and that "lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value for minors."
The tremendous room for subjective judgment in applying those guidelines highlights the fallacy of trying to restrict speech. Make no mistake: Some of the video games on the market are deeply disturbing, with horrific violence that is sometimes disgustingly misogynistic or racist. But the purpose of the First Amendment was to protect even the most disturbing speech.
We must not start drawing limits for we would then open up our communication to censors, allowing the opinions of the majority to suppress the thoughts and ideas of those out of favor.
California's laws presented especially troubling issues. For starters, it sought to restrict just one medium, video games. As the high court noted, there is no good reason to single out one form of communication over another. Certainly our children have been exposed to violence on television, at the movies and in books and comics they read.
Secondly, the law presented a challenge to us, for it would have controlled speech aimed at children. On the surface, it's an appealing notion since it would have protected a vulnerable segment of our society. And, as the court noted, government possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm.
But, as the court also noted, "that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed." Those children enjoy First Amendment protections, as well. They enjoy rights of free speech and religion. While parents have traditionally had the power to control what their children hear and say, our laws should not be substituting governmental control for parental authority.
As the court noted, we have a long tradition of violence in the speech we provide our children: "Grimm's Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed. ... Cinderella's evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves. ... And Hansel and Gretel (children!) kill their captor by baking her in an oven." Once we start censoring, where do we draw the line? For example, should we restrict minors' access to the violent "Terminator" movies starring Arnold Schwarzenegger, who, ironically, as governor signed the California law?
Rather than go down that path, we should leave parenting to parents -- and protect the First Amendment rights of expression so central to our nation's core.
#28
Eriol
Eriol
Yay where you live. I can't believe I saw such a well-thought out editorial in something even close to "Mainstream Media". Really I'm shocked. In a good way for once.