News

US: California law banning sales of 'violent' videogames to children struck down
Posted: 27.06.2011 17:08 by JonahFalcon Comments: 29
"Violence belongs on the silver screen, not a monitor."
The US Supreme Court has struck down a California law that would have banned selling "violent" video games to children by a 7-2 ruling. The law was ruled unconstitutional, because the law was too extensive, and the current industry-imposed voluntary rating system was adequate enough to protect minors.

According to Chief Justice Antonin Scalia, "As a means of assisting concerned parents it (the law) is seriously overinclusive because it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents (and aunts and uncles) think violent video games are a harmless pastime." Scalia noted the court had never permitted government regulation of minors' "access to any forms of entertainment except on obscenity grounds."

A federal appeals court in San Francisco last year tossed out the law before it took effect, after then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed it in 2005. He had applauded the high court's decision to intervene. "We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultraviolent actions, just as we already do with movies." Of course, Schwarzenegger starred in ultra-violent films such as The Terminator series and Commando.

The law would have been applied to games in which the player was given the choice of "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" in "offensive ways." It also defined such games as those that would "appeal to a deviant or morbid interest of children and are patently offensive to prevailing community standards."

Two other factors went into the Supreme Court ruling: the fact that videogames were registered as a form of art by the National Endowment of the Arts, and that the ESRB functioned in the same way as the MPAA, which allowed sexual and violent content to exist in film since the late 1960's.

The law was found unconstitutional in 2009 by the U.S. appeals court, and the case went to the Supreme Court in April 2010, over a year ago.
Source: CNN

Comments

By SirRoderick (SI Elite) on Jun 27, 2011
SirRoderick
WHOAHEY!!!!!

Sensible court ruling? In America of all places?
This is either a good sign or one foretelling the Apocalypse.
By djole381 (SI Elite) on Jun 27, 2011
djole381
@SirRoderick
I'd go with the other one. After all, we have about a year before the end of the world :)
By PowerJack (SI Elite) on Jun 27, 2011
PowerJack
"The law was ruled unconstitutional..."

Not that it bothered me, but its about damn time.
By herodotus (SI Herodotus) on Jun 27, 2011
herodotus
So you guys think it's okay for children to be playing violent video games, unsupervised as the majority are.
"...it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents (and aunts and uncles) think violent video games are a harmless pastime."
By SirRoderick (SI Elite) on Jun 27, 2011
SirRoderick
....uhm, are you serious?
All it does is allow people to let their kids play whatever they like.

Please tell me that was a bad joke.
By herodotus (SI Herodotus) on Jun 27, 2011
herodotus
I've ammended what I said (haha, amended...as in first amendment...oh well), Roderick but the quote I've included sets a prescedent that states clearly that it's okay for kiddies to dismember and maim in video games. I for one think it's not okay.
The failure of parents to supervise what their chilren are exposed to in gaming and on the internet, and a massive failure it is, is just given reinforcement by law. How is that "okay"?
I think this whole thing is a bad joke.
By SirRoderick (SI Elite) on Jun 27, 2011
SirRoderick
"The failure of parents to supervise....."

That there seys it, it's the parents job. And I for one do not want to live in a nanny state where the government even gets to dictate what entertainment is good enough for my kids.
By herodotus (SI Herodotus) on Jun 27, 2011
herodotus
Fair enough, and to that extent I agree. However, this proposed law clearly states that the intention was to prevent children partaking in:
"...killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" in "offensive ways.""
Parents do not supervise their children...it's a fact. So how else do we restrict what is definitley adult (sometimes sick adult) material from being exposed to those who shouldn't be? Unless we should just throw out the ratings altogether and allow anything to be seen and played by anybody.
That would be a totally free, and very scary society.
By SirRoderick (SI Elite) on Jun 27, 2011
SirRoderick
"However, this proposed law clearly states that the intention was to prevent children partaking in:
"...killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" in "offensive ways.""

I'm sure that was their intention, but passing arbitrary restriction laws on free speech and trade is certainly not a good way to do it. The ends do not justify the means.

"Parents do not supervise their children...it's a fact. "
Well I'm sorry if that's your experience, but I happen to have very good parents (in fact I'd say I was supervised too much) as do most of my friends. It is simply a non-issue.

Also, please realise we're talking about videogames here, you can't possibly be one of those people that cliams that people that play GTA will end up on crack killing hoockers right?

This has been going on for AGES with movies and that never destroyed society. I watched many a gorey film in my early teens and I'm a (mostly) perfectly balanced person with no homicidal or antisocial tendencies. As a matter of fact I'd say I'm much more balanced emotionally than most people.

My point is you have to seriously consider the actual harm this might do (negligible) compared to the disadvantages of this sort of legislation (loss of freedom). Bad parents will be bad parents and the kids really don't need video games to come out bad as well.
By herodotus (SI Herodotus) on Jun 27, 2011
herodotus
I hear you Roderick, and I know there are parents who take an active interest and are careful. But the overwhelming majority don't, they just don't (some don't think their kids have moved on from Mario or Pokemon).
I don't believe TV, movies or videogames make people violent (even if they do listen to Metallica...nod to the West Memphis 3...free them!). Violent porn is the main culprit there ("Bundy: "Ban 'Hustler', not 'Catcher in the Rye'".).
As you say, it's an old argument but I do believe the intention was spot on...just a shame it couldn't take this sort of material out of the hands of minors as it does in other countries.
GTA causing people to roll hookers...nah, mate. I'm not a crackpot:). Been around videogames for too many decades to think that way, though I had strong objections to "Syndicate" when it first came out.
By JonahFalcon (SI Elite) on Jun 27, 2011
JonahFalcon
You think it's okay for children to watch R rated movies?

It's EASIER for children to watch R rated movies than it is for them to buy M rated video games.
By herodotus (SI Herodotus) on Jun 27, 2011
herodotus
They watch worse online.
By PowerJack (SI Elite) on Jun 28, 2011
PowerJack
"Unless we should just throw out the ratings altogether and allow anything to be seen and played by anybody.
That would be a totally free, and very scary society."

That would be my kind of world.
By DaSilverTitan (SI Newbie) on Jun 28, 2011
DaSilverTitan
@JonahFalcon You have a good point. Kids can turn on a TV and expose themselves to REAL sex and violence...but thats better than fake entertainment. No wonder it was shot down.
By bosnian_dragon (SI Core) on Jun 28, 2011
bosnian_dragon
Each parent should have some software (like kaspersky) to protect their kids from using PC resources that they don't want to be seen. I find Kaspersky's parental controls very useful (I don't have kids, I'm not that old lol) but I surely will use it when I leave my PC unattended and when my young cousins come over to my place.

If parents are illiterate (in IT way) then I guess they shouldn't buy a computer to their kids. I have a cousin who is about 8-9 years old, and he's been playing PC games since he was 5... There are definitely consequences on his behavior, because whenever I come to visit his parents, he keeps jumping around talking about war, and no one can interrupt his "preaching" about Iraq and stuff like that because he's been playing war FPS games for years now... :) I can't believe it but his parents still let him play mature rated games because they think it's "just a game" and nothing else...
By herodotus (SI Herodotus) on Jun 29, 2011
herodotus
If passed it might have paved the way for even more punishing and stricter Laws being proposed with regard to internet access by children to content they really should not be exposed to. This could have endangered Yutube, and any other site that allows unsupervised viewing, and/or interaction with media that is socially a problem. They just have to lie about their age.

As a parent, I have to cringe whenever kids laugh and chuckle at when they fire at video NPC's only to watch the heads, and often bodies explode into pieces. It's chilling. The real thing is strongly censored by television (aside from PPV), but not gaming in most countries.

As a gamer, I'd be a hypocrite to say I didn't have fun all the way with doing it myself (but then this sort of graphic sex and violence wasn't available until my thirties). Still, it makes me wonder...
By bosnian_dragon (SI Core) on Jun 29, 2011
bosnian_dragon
Yeah, back when we were kids, games were much more innocent and graphics didn't look that good either. If I blew up some heads in Doom, they looked like a bunch of funny random pixels going around the screen. The modern games have a big dose of realism, which surely makes a huge difference in experience during gameplay. If you just look at the latest graphics in CoD or BF3, you see my point. When you kill someone in-game in those games, it looks reeeally realistic. Heck, when I played Cod2 Modern Warfare, I almost felt sorry for those runaway terrorists that I shot from my Spectre in that Russian mission.
By PowerJack (SI Elite) on Jun 29, 2011
PowerJack
So what if the games look realistic, the parents just have to stop being a bunch of idiots by letting the kids play what "they" think they shouldn't and the kids just have to stop being a bunch of fools that believe in everything they see.

Back in the pixel age we didn't have games with graphics but still had TV shows that did the same.

Heck, I still remember kids hurting/killing themselves/others after watching those shows.
One that I remember, mostly because of the stupidity of it, was a kid jumping from an apartment building because he called the Flying Nimbus and it didn't show up to break the fall.

As I like to say we only need common sense.
By bosnian_dragon (SI Core) on Jun 29, 2011
bosnian_dragon
Yes, I agree about that. Realism in games is equally bad for kids' brain as the TV shows and movies. I'm only saying that mature PC games shouldn't be allowed to kids that are under 10 years old.
By bosnian_dragon (SI Core) on Jun 29, 2011
bosnian_dragon
at least 10...
By herodotus (SI Herodotus) on Jun 29, 2011
herodotus
"Child's Play 3" was banned here in Oz years ago, as idiot young teens were playing the game of "dare" with cars on the road (rolling away at the last minute from oncoming traffic - or not as several deaths showed). Yet this is somewhat different to what we're talking about here.
In the end I wish parents were mature enough to supervise this, but the fact remains that the majority don't know or don't care enough. The gaming console for many has replaced the TV as the live-in babysitter, not realising that that babysitter can be Alice from "American McGee's Alice".

The point that many have made, and it could be quite true, is that this Law was not passed primarily to protect corporations that made and distributed games, rather than the public.
By chiefone (SI Veteran Member) on Jun 29, 2011
chiefone
This is a terrible law unless you want the government in your living room and monitoring everything you buy and where you go online. I agree parents should regulate what their children play. Enacting a law like this would imply parents have no such responsibility and would create further parental oversight problems.
By raw_wog33 (SI Member) on Jun 29, 2011
raw_wog33
Bro, who cares! im over the recommended age, and its only california. Lets hope its not America, since its one of the biggest gaming countries.
By raw_wog33 (SI Member) on Jun 29, 2011
raw_wog33
I agree with 'Bosnian drgn' that the age limit should be atleast 10.
By arbbitar (I just got here) on Jun 29, 2011
arbbitar
Lulz, and all I ever listen to is people raging about 12 year olds playing COD. dERPAdERPAsTAN
By PowerJack (SI Elite) on Jun 29, 2011
PowerJack
Some laws are made so that we wont think about things.

For instance, in the beginning of this week a pop-star from here (Portugal) got in a car accident and got in a coma (he's already dead btw) because he didn't have his seatbelt on, and there is a law that makes you put it on.

Now they (news) are raging about how bad a message that is to the young fans.

I mean come on, this is one of those situation that I have to laugh (at the dead guy), if you're stupid then die and if you die being stupid then stay dead.

Allot of people would drop dead if this were the case.

^.^
By JonahFalcon (SI Elite) on Jun 29, 2011
JonahFalcon
There are too many 12 year olds on Xbox Live anyway.
By JonahFalcon (SI Elite) on Jun 29, 2011
JonahFalcon
There are too many 12 year olds on Xbox Live anyway.
By herodotus (SI Herodotus) on Jun 29, 2011
herodotus
That age doesn't necessarily translate to PC though. There are quite a few 12-15yo gamers that 'play' simulators (such as "Railworks", "Rise of Flight" and "DCS: A-10C") and they are quite mature and good to game with. Though the 13yo who plays "Railworks" states he gets bashed at school for it, poor wimp:(
However, give them a semi-automatic and webbing stocked with semtex and they become wailing banshees...with headphones and mics:)