First Amendment and Video Games

[stebo0728]

Ok, so haven't seen anyone else do a thread on this, so I figured I would.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/ ... a_law.html

So I tried to find an article that just described the issue rather than blather one side or the other. Im undecided, but have some questions.

So basically SCOTUS ruled that the California law, banning the sale of violent video games to minors, is unconstitutional. Basically they say its a breach of First Amendment freedom of speech.

But I have to say, I'm a bit confused, because we already

A) Withhold pornography from minors

B) Withhold explicit lyric music from minors

So I am at a bit of a loss as to why withholding video game content from minors is suddenly a breach where as A & B above arent.

Let me clarify by stating that I agree with A & B above, my point is I am trending toward NOT agreeing with the SCOTUS ruling here. I have four boys, and they are already getting immersed in video games (just like 'ol dad) but I extremely limit what they are exposed to. And ok so maybe its the parents job to do this and not the government's, I can buy that argument, only we already let the government do it in other areas where minors are concerned, as what I guess is a measure akin to a short-stop backing up the second baseman in case he misses a grounder. In case the parents dont do their job, the minors are still protected.

So anyway, anyone else have any thoughts there?

[Cold_Zero]

I think the pronography is a stronger example in your arguement than music with explicit lyrics. While it is illegal for a minor to buy an album with explicit lyrics, it is not illegal for a parent to buy it and provide it to a minor. Thus the Parental Warning sticker on the covor. I am pretty much sure that it is illegal, in most/all states to provide a minor with pronographic material period. Enforcement is another matter.

But I do have to agree, when I heard the sound bite from the ruling I was confused as well.

[bigbadberry3]

Ok, so haven't seen anyone else do a thread on this, so I figured I would.

http://slatest.slate.com/posts/2011/06/ ... a_law.html

So I tried to find an article that just described the issue rather than blather one side or the other. Im undecided, but have some questions.

So basically SCOTUS ruled that the California law, banning the sale of violent video games to minors, is unconstitutional. Basically they say its a breach of First Amendment freedom of speech.

But I have to say, I'm a bit confused, because we already

A) Withhold pornography from minors

B) Withhold explicit lyric music from minors

So I am at a bit of a loss as to why withholding video game content from minors is suddenly a breach where as A & B above arent.

Let me clarify by stating that I agree with A & B above, my point is I am trending toward NOT agreeing with the SCOTUS ruling here. I have four boys, and they are already getting immersed in video games (just like 'ol dad) but I extremely limit what they are exposed to. And ok so maybe its the parents job to do this and not the government's, I can buy that argument, only we already let the government do it in other areas where minors are concerned, as what I guess is a measure akin to a short-stop backing up the second baseman in case he misses a grounder. In case the parents dont do their job, the minors are still protected.

So anyway, anyone else have any thoughts there?

I did a Wiki search - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Legal_stat ... ornography - and it looks like there is no law against with regards to p0rn about the age requirement. (Please interject if I'm wrong.)

Maybe it was overturned because before it was a store policy and not a law?

And I'm ok with the ruling. It's the parents responsibility to stay involved with their children and what they are doing.

[IBCoupe]

It's not illegal to sell vulgar words to kids, and pornography is the only carve-out the Court has made to the First Amendment on this particular line of thinking.

It's illegal to show a kid p0rn. It's not illegal to play gangsta rap.

[stebo0728]

Well, Im not a gangsta, so I dont buy music that sounds like one sustained beep on public airwaves. I could have sworn you had to 18 to buy explicit lyrics albums, but apparently I was wrong there.

I completely agree with the sentiment "its up to the parents to parent". And my libertarian chips in my choclatey conservative cookie tend to make me say it should stay that way. But I guess I can also see the arguments behind keeping kids from practicing blowing peoples' heads off, especially as the simulation becomes more and more lifelike with each release of SOCOM.

[mattblancarte]

ESRB ratings are pretty much treated as law in game retailing, anyways. Children under 17 cannot buy M-rated games from major retailers, as the clerk will check for identification prior to sale. I've been carded for video games well into my mid-twenties.

Redundant "save the children" law is redundant.

[S13_love]

ESRB ratings are pretty much treated as law in game retailing, anyways. Children under 17 cannot buy M-rated games from major retailers, as the clerk will check for identification prior to sale. I've been carded for video games well into my mid-twenties.

Redundant "save the children" law is redundant.

So...I just want to make sure I got this right. California was basically trying to pass a law in which the minimum age to buy violent (rated M) games would be 18, instead of 17?

[IBCoupe]

I don't think a retailer will get in trouble for ignoring ESRB ratings, just like a movie theater won't get in trouble with the law by ignoring MPAA ratings. The restrictions are placed on advertising, and even then, they're voluntary, though everybody seeks a rating.

The reason that the ratings don't have force of law is that the First Amendment protects your access to information, because otherwise "freedom of the press" would be pretty meaningless. And pretty much the only person in the world who thinks that the First Amendment doesn't apply to people aged 17 and under is Supreme Court Justice Clarence Thomas.

...which is kind of odd, strict constructionist that he is.

[Cold_Zero]

I'm confused then. When we went to go see Sucker Punch the cops came in and carded a group of kids. One of the kids was escorted out. So is it illegal for minors to be in an R Rated movie? I always thought the theater would get in trouble.

[IBCoupe]

I'll look into it, but I don't think the police were enforcing the rating system. You sure it was local police and not the theater's rent-a-cop's?

The theaters themselves set those kinds of policies. For example, AMC theaters refuse to show any film rated NC-17.

[mattblancarte]

I don't think a retailer will get in trouble for ignoring ESRB ratings, just like a movie theater won't get in trouble with the law by ignoring MPAA ratings.

They actually would get in big trouble, just not in a legal sense. Local news, national news, competitive advertising would be all over any company that decided to operate away from rating system guidelines (by selling M+ rated games to minors, or letting little kids into R-rated movies without an adult).

In regards to the police escorting underage moviegoers, they are just enforcing house rules. It's totally normal to see officers taking overtime shifts at movie theaters, football games, etc.

[HashiriyaS14]

I'm not opposed to the restriction, so long as it applies only to minors and not to everyone.

The problem, of course, is that these regulations often come from zealots who want to ban them altogether, and they thinly veil that opinion, which causes everyone to take a hard line against the restriction.

[Morph]

ESRB ratings are pretty much treated as law in game retailing, anyways. Children under 17 cannot buy M-rated games from major retailers, as the clerk will check for identification prior to sale. I've been carded for video games well into my mid-twenties.

Redundant "save the children" law is redundant.

So...I just want to make sure I got this right. California was basically trying to pass a law in which the minimum age to buy violent (rated M) games would be 18, instead of 17?

Semi old but what they were trying to do is pass a law that stopped the sale of "Inappropriate" games to Minors, NOT M rated games. Thats what caused the stink, who determines what is and isnt appropriate. Glad that law didnt pass.

[Cold_Zero]

You sure it was local police and not the theater's rent-a-cop's?

It was Fishers Police. I know them anywhere, not that we have had some run ins with them before or anything. Now if this guy was off duty and working security, well that remains to be seen.

[IBCoupe]

You sure it was local police and not the theater's rent-a-cop's?

It was Fishers Police. I know them anywhere, not that we have had some run ins with them before or anything. Now if this guy was off duty and working security, well that remains to be seen.

Well, all the cop could do was get someone to leave the premises when the establishment asks. They're not enforcing the ratings, just kicking people out. You'd only go to jail for refusing a police order, I think.

[Encryptshun]

And "Sucker Punch" was rated R. That means anyone under 17 must be in the accompanyment of someone 18 or older ("Children under 17 not admitted without parent or guardian") so if the kid was with someone over 18, he should have been fine. I saw plenty of R rated movies before I was 17, so long as I was in the company of someone over 18. I'm wondering if the kid was in trouble for something else.