Thread: Video Game Ban to go to Supreme Court

http://news.cnet.com/8301-13578_3-20003448-38.html

Originally Posted by Declan McCullagh

The U.S. Supreme Court will decide whether minors have the right to buy violent video games in a case that tests whether computer software is guaranteed the same free speech protections as books, newspapers, and magazines.

On Monday, the justices agreed to review a California law that a federal appeals court struck down last year on the grounds that even children and teenagers enjoy free speech rights that are protected by the First Amendment. The case will be heard late this year or in early 2011.

California is one of a string of states that have enacted similar laws restricting minors' rights to buy violent video games--legislation that has been uniformly rejected by the courts. Laws in Illinois and Michigan were blocked by federal judges on First Amendment grounds in 2005, and earlier laws in Indianapolis and Missouri's St. Louis County were also shot down.

The U.S. Supreme Court has not squarely addressed this topic, but it has said in other cases that even minors have some free-expression rights.

Although California's law doesn't target a specific game by name, government lawyers did single out Postal 2, which allows players to go on murderous rampages, by name. And the Federal Trade Commission has previously targeted the makers of "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas" for having sexually-explicit content.

The California law slaps anyone who sells or rents a "violent video game" to a minor with a $1,000 fine. That was defined as a game in which the player has the option of "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" in offensive ways. Parents or guardians are still permitted to buy those games for minors.

Now not super sure where to stand on this, as I really don't believe violent video games do anymore harm then movies, T.V. etc. etc., and MOST people around 14 can probably handle it. But i could also see the reasoning in that some kids really shouldn't be allowed around them. Again though, some of those parents probably would buy it for them anyways, as it seems like most parents that don't are the super strict type who kids are a-okay (except for their screwy parents).

But aren't minors also banned from R rated movies without a parent? Or is that just private businesses making the choice and not an actual law/regulation?

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

But aren't minors also banned from R rated movies without a parent? Or is that just private businesses making the choice and not an actual law/regulation?

Yes, but I highly doubt it's heavily enforced anywhere.

EDIT:

http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp

Originally Posted by Guyver

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

But aren't minors also banned from R rated movies without a parent? Or is that just private businesses making the choice and not an actual law/regulation?

Yes, but I highly doubt it's heavily enforced anywhere.

EDIT:

http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp

In my town, that's about the only rule they do enforce. I really could never see a movie with my friends until I hit 17.

Originally Posted by Guyver

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

But aren't minors also banned from R rated movies without a parent? Or is that just private businesses making the choice and not an actual law/regulation?

Yes, but I highly doubt it's heavily enforced anywhere.

EDIT:

http://www.mpaa.org/FlmRat_Ratings.asp

Here is San Antonio they really enforce it.

The ratings on the movies are there only for informational purposes, and there is no law which requires distributors to prevent minors from buying or viewing the material ?except I believe in the case of pornography(may vary by state? or I may be entirely wrong?)?.

The law in question requires that minors be prevented from viewing or buying games which are violent or sexually explicit, and levies a fine on anyone in violation. This is clearly unconstitutional based on the precedent set in regard to books and movies. The rating system and its enforcement should be entirely voluntary and its enforcement the responsibility of the minors parent or guardian.

Originally Posted by Red_Lizard2

But aren't minors also banned from R rated movies without a parent? Or is that just private businesses making the choice and not an actual law/regulation?

Go watch this...and you will see how fucked up the MPAA is....ESRB will turn out to be the same way...

As the only institution of its kind, the MPAA decisions about a movie’s rating are not only a helpful hint for parents about what to allow theird kids to see and what not – these ratings influence decisions about marketing budgets, releases etc. heavily and ultimately can make or break a movie.
But what are their rules? And why are the identities of the raters kept secret?
Dick hires a private detective to find out these identities. While this work slowly progresses, he interviews film makers about their experience with the MPAA and makes some astonishing conclusions.

This Film Is Not Yet Rated is an entertaining and educating documentary. It uncovers thigns you never really thought about before. I didn’t care that much for the narrative structure (or more the lack of a consequent one), but I heartily recommend this movie to anyone interested in the industry.




What I found especially interesting was the whole problem the MPAA apparently has with female sexuality (and homosexuality). In a very interesting comparative montage, the film showed basically the same scenes (regarding camera angles, length etc) from different movies. For example, orgasm scenes. If it was a woman having the orgasm, the rating was invariably NC-17. If it was a man, it was R (or even PG-13). If it was a heterosexual couple: R or PG-13. Homosexual: NC-17.

But Dick doesn’t limit himself to examining sexuality. He takes a look at violence and it is surprising how violence gets far less rigid ratings than sexuality. He points out how independent film makers have a much harder time to achieve an R rating instead of a NC-17. He shows the bigotry of the system that tells big studios exactly what needs to be changed about a movie so it can get a less restrictive rating and tells smaller studios and indies how they can’t comment on how their decision was reached.

ESRB is already bad, my favorite example was Culpa Innata being rated M

Now, i've seen T games worse then CI, BUT because they used the words "Sexual partners" that was an automatic M rating and they had to remove a scene that basically implied they were doing something sexual (but you didn't see anything just heard some sounds supposedly) to avoid an AO rating.

Compare to GTA, a game you can go around shooting people and attacking with a "sex toy" and that is only a M rating. Hmmm a big difference between the two games don't ya think?