1st amendment wins again: SCOTUS strikes down CA video game law

[Linflas]

Court: Calif. can't ban violent video game sales

Nothing to stop parents from preventing their kids from buying these games, don't expect the government to do the job for you.

 

[PokerGuy]

I found it interesting that Thomas didn't go along with the majority on this one. Breyer is a nut so that's not surprising....

 

[shira]

And a slam-dunk 7-2 vote.

 

[woolfe9999]

Only one problem with the ruling, the double standard:

Unlike depictions of "sexual conduct," Scalia said there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White.

 

[MotF Bane]

Excellent.

 

[MotF Bane]

And a slam-dunk 7-2 vote.

Seems a novelty to not see 5-4.

 

[Texashiker]

It should be the parents job to say what kind of video games the kids can play, and not the state.

 

[a777pilot]

Freedom of speech and the free flow of ideas is a great thing and I applaud the Supreme Court in this decision, only then why is religion restricted? Is not the idea to freely allow ideas to reach our children. All ideas to include violent games and....gasp....maybe even religion?

I wonder who will take the bait?

 

[Anarchist420]

Only one problem with the ruling, the double standard:

SCOTUS had no rightful business accepting this case.

Anyway, I wonder what the ruling would've been if some games still had more sex than violence in them. What if there were still "adult" games like the ones for the 3DO back in the day? It obviously wouldn't be protected by the Federal Government, but would it be banned by the Federal government? I would guess the latter, since this court HATES the Bill of Rights and in particular, the rights of the States.

 

[xj0hnx]

"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion. "But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

Unless it's boobies, can't have kids seeing evil boobies.

 

[Macamus Prime]

Super Mario Brothers is pro-communism - how could our gubnament fail us at this time of crisis?!?!?

 

[woolfe9999]

SCOTUS had no rightful business accepting this case.

Anyway, I wonder what the ruling would've been if some games still had more sex than violence in them. What if there were still "adult" games like the ones for the 3DO back in the day? It obviously wouldn't be protected by the Federal Government, but would it be banned by the Federal government? I would guess the latter, since this court HATES the Bill of Rights and in particular, the rights of the States.

It's pretty clear to me that if computer games typically had lots of sex, the ruling would have been different.

I wonder what is different about this than the MPAA rating system and admission restrictions for movies. R and NC-17 restrictions based on a rating which is a reflection of sex, violence and profanity combined. Because the MPAA hypocritically increases the rating more for sex than violence then the whole system is fine. This is just rank hypocrisy based on "traditional morality" and has no place in our First Amendment jurisprudence.

Edit: just realized the difference is that the MPAA is imposed by industry, not government. Duh.

 

[airdata]

you mean... parents need to parent?

 

[Wreckem]

Seems a novelty to not see 5-4.

It was 5-2-2. Or 5-2-1-1, since Breyer and Thomas dissented for completely different reasons.

Alito and Roberts only concurred in judgement. It was Scalia, Kagan, Sotomayer, Ginsberg and Kennedy in the majority opinion. Apparently it took so long for this opinion to come out because Scalia and Alito were battling on who was going to get the majority, a broad ruling(Scalia), or a narrow ruling(Alito). Scalia won and if you read the foot notes he takes shots at Alito.

 

[Wreckem]

It's pretty clear to me that if computer games typically had lots of sex, the ruling would have been different.

I wonder what is different about this than the MPAA rating system and admission restrictions for movies. R and NC-17 restrictions based on a rating which is a reflection of sex, violence and profanity combined. Because the MPAA hypocritically increases the rating more for sex than violence then the whole system is fine. This is just rank hypocrisy based on "traditional morality" and has no place in our First Amendment jurisprudence.

Actually you are completely wrong. The MPAA rating system is voluntary, and most movie theater do not allow underaged kids into R rated movies. The ESRB is also voluntary, and most retailers do not sell M rated games to underaged kids. Hypocrisy not found. Same goes for the parental advisory sticker on music. Its all voluntary ratings by industry, as it should be because as SCotUS has said time and time again, more or less the government can only regulate obscene speech.

If the CA law was upheld it would have allowed each individual state to determine ratings for not just games, but music, movies etc.

 

[shira]

It's pretty clear to me that if computer games typically had lots of sex, the ruling would have been different.

I wonder what is different about this than the MPAA rating system and admission restrictions for movies. R and NC-17 restrictions based on a rating which is a reflection of sex, violence and profanity combined. Because the MPAA hypocritically increases the rating more for sex than violence then the whole system is fine. This is just rank hypocrisy based on "traditional morality" and has no place in our First Amendment jurisprudence.

I wouldn't be surprised if a video game that depicted a man and woman kissing passionately would not be restricted, but the same game showing two men kissing passionately would be.

 

[ch33zw1z]

Freedom of speech and the free flow of ideas is a great thing and I applaud the Supreme Court in this decision, only then why is religion restricted? Is not the idea to freely allow ideas to reach our children. All ideas to include violent games and....gasp....maybe even religion?

I wonder who will take the bait?

lol, religion "restricted". In your dreams.

 

[woolfe9999]

Actually you are completely wrong. The MPAA rating system is voluntary, and most movie theater do not allow underaged kids into R rated movies. The ESRB is also voluntary, and most retailers do not sell M rated games to underaged kids. Hypocrisy not found. Same goes for the parental advisory sticker on music. Its all voluntary ratings by industry, as it should be. If this law was upheld it would have allow each individual state to determine ratings for not just games, but music, movies etc.

Actually the reason I'm wrong is that it is private censorship, not public. See the edit to my post above.

 

[woolfe9999]

I wouldn't be surprised if a video game that depicted a man and woman kissing passionately would not be restricted, but the same game showing two men kissing passionately would be.

I wouldn't be surprised to see that hypocrisy.

I note that "adult video games" (typically 3D interactive pr0n) are a growing industry these days, here and in Japan. I predict in about 5 years they'll be absolutely huge. Will be curious to see how the court may rule on any laws restricting the sale of these to minors. I'm betting it will be entirely different.

 

[Wreckem]

I wouldn't be surprised to see that hypocrisy.

I note that "adult video games" (typically 3D interactive pr0n) are a growing industry these days, here and in Japan. I predict in about 5 years they'll be absolutely huge. Will be curious to see how the court may rule on any laws restricting the sale of these to minors. I'm betting it will be entirely different.

There were AO games back when the Sega CD was out. AO is a kiss of death rating just like NC-17.

The majority of retailers follow the ESRB rating system and do not sell M rated games to minors.

Most major retailers(Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, Gamestop) in the US do not carry AO games and they likely never will. Not to mention MS, Sony, and Nintendo do not allow AO games to be published on their consoles.

Not to mention interactive porn will never be considered a game, and will never be rated by ESRB or associated with EMA. It will be classified as porn and be treated as such.

 

[woolfe9999]

There were AO games back when the Sega CD was out.

The majority of retailers follow the ESRB rating system and do not sell M rated games to minors.

Most retailers in the US do not carry AO games and they likely never will.

Yes, currently adult games are sold only online AFAIK, at least for US customers. Doesn't mean we won't see laws to rectrict said sales, just that they will be difficult to enforce in that context.

 

[Schadenfroh]

We have sexual depictions and violence in movies and on premium channels. That is why we have a rating system, let parents police their own kids. Censorship and outright bans are silly.

Unless it's boobies, can't have kids seeing evil boobies.

Tell that to Jack Thompson.

 

[Anarchist420]

There were AO games back when the Sega CD was out. AO is a kiss of death rating just like NC-17.

The majority of retailers follow the ESRB rating system and do not sell M rated games to minors.

Most major retailers(Wal-Mart, Target, Best Buy, Gamestop) in the US do not carry AO games and they likely never will. Not to mention MS, Sony, and Nintendo do not allow AO games to be published on their consoles.

Not to mention interactive porn will never be considered a game, and will never be rated by ESRB or associated with EMA. It will be classified as porn and be treated as such.

There weren't any Sega CD games rated AO [edit: nm, you never said there were AO games for the Sega CD). A few were rated by Sega's VRC which the highest was MA-17 (a few games one of which was Mortal Kombat and Snatcher IIRC) and M (ESRB) which only a few more games received (Eternal Champion Challenge from the Dark Side, the Night Trap rerelease, and the Space Adventure).

In the early days of ESRB, M ratings were a lot rarer than they are now even though the content in games today isn't any more sexual or violent than it was from 95-99. They cracked down after parents complained, I guess.

 

[Wreckem]

There weren't any Sega CD games rated AO [edit: nm, you never said there were AO games for the Sega CD). A few were rated by Sega's VRC which the highest was MA-17 (a few games one of which was Mortal Kombat and Snatcher IIRC) and M (ESRB) which only a few more games received (Eternal Champion Challenge from the Dark Side, the Night Trap rerelease, and the Space Adventure).

In the early days of ESRB, M ratings were a lot rarer than they are now even though the content in games today isn't any more sexual or violent than it was from 95-99. They cracked down after parents complained, I guess.

I might have been off on the AO, you are right it was probably M/MA-17 but there was a game on the Sega CD or 32x. I just am fuzzy on all the details. It was almost 20 years ago.

 

[rudder]

Only one problem with the ruling, the double standard:

Unlike depictions of "sexual conduct," Scalia said there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White.

How is this a double standard? You cannot compare depictions of violence to depictions of sexual conduct. For instance, if my son watches a movie where someone is killed. It is easier for me to explain violence in terms of right and wrong. If there is a movie where a couple is going at it like rabbits... it is right... but it is wrong now. He along with most children are more apt to eventually participate in sexual conduct rather than violent conduct.

Another example, I think a 12 year old can detach the removal of a zombies head via a golf club from reality... versus say playing a game full of sexual content.

Don't know what you would do about a game with a mix though! But really... it is up to me to decide the maturity level of my children not the Federal government.