Really, can we cut the "this doesn't affect me so I'm ok with it" stuff already? If they tried to pass a law that wouldn't let anyone under 18 into a library I'd still be pretty pissed about it, as I hope any adult with half a brain would.
I think your making some pretty sweeping assumptions based on a small post. If this bill passed my experience at the register might be a tad more inconveniant due to being carded, but that's an acceptable tradeoff in my view if it means finding a happy middle ground with those who oppose M rated content.
To simply assume that my view on the matter consists entirely of "this doesn't affect me so I'm ok with it" is a little insulting. I beleive that the idea of mandatory carding is a perfectly acceptable compromise with those who strongly oppose M rated content.
gameworker on
0
Options
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
My quoted case there is pretty clear-cut, guys. I'm actually glad I found it, because I don't have to worry about this law holding up.
Thank god for legal precedent.
Bzzzt! You should read the rest of the case, not just the strident dicta.It's only eleven pages. What it's really about is that the government has to show the link beween video games and harm before they can regulate it - but once they do that, they can do LOTS to prevent minors from seeing stuff.
A few things:
1) Violence alone doesn't count as obscenity - so things that regulate games with sexual content are OK under their standard. But we have previously observed that "material that contains [**11] violence but not depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct cannot be obscene." Video Software, 968 F.2d at 688. Simply put, depictions of violence cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults. See id.
2) You need to have evidence showing that video games harm children. In this case, the evidence was crappy. If you have stronger evidence - more psychological studies - then it would be an OK restraint:
It is true that a psychologist appearing on behalf of the County stated that a recent study that he conducted indicates that playing violent video games "does in fact lead to aggressive behavior in the immediate situation [*959] . . . that more aggressive thoughts are reported and there is frequently more aggressive behavior." But this vague generality falls far short of a showing that video games are psychologically deleterious. The County's remaining evidence included the conclusory comments [**13] of county council members; a small number of ambiguous, inconclusive, or irrelevant (conducted on adults, not minors) studies; and the testimony of a high school principal who admittedly had no information regarding any link between violent video games and psychological harm.
My arguments are pretty good, guys. I'm glad I posted here, because now I don't have to worry about this law not passing.
Thank god I'm always right, and I like to pat myself on the back.
Arrogance isnt arrogance when it is truth.
While the legal precedent for what he posted may be debatable, the logical reasoning behind has more clarifty and meaning than any of the ramblings in the 5 threads on this issue we have every week.
It's not like this hasn't happend to Gangster Movies, Comic Books, Other Movies, Television, Rock and Roll, Catcher in the Rye, Dungeons and Dragons, Rap Music, or anything else that has been popular with the kids.
Some parents think it is the tool of the devil.
Some lazy politician supports it for free votes.
Law may or may not be passed, and immediately struck down.
I'm actually amazed that laws against pornography have held up, but there is a bit of research saying that can actually damage a growing mind. I think that's codswallop, but whatever.
Numbers below are percentage of how often ID is checked based off of the FTC's study:
Average for retailers, videogames: 80% of the time, ID is checked
Average for retailers, R-rated movie theater: 65%
Average for retailers, purchasing R-rated DVDs: 53%
Average for retailers, purchasing unrated DVDs (tending to be worse than R): 49%
For videogames, Gamestop, the biggest 'gaming-only' store, checked ID 94%. Walmart and Best Buy checked around 80% of the time.
The retailers are policing themselves very well already.
I really like the idea behind the law - parents should know what their children are playing, and a lot of M-rated games should be restricted to children under 18 - but it is likely going to fail due to possible 1st amendment issues, plus it would make the ESRB ratings enforceable by law, and since the ESRB is not (yet) a governmental entity, that's unconstitutional.
Ok, so let's just dismiss altogether the law at hand:
Should the industry, voluntarily, restrict the sale of movies rated R, music with explicit lyrics, games rated M?
If so, what can the game industry do better so they do not get targeted by these types of bills in the future?
Why is it that the game industry keeps coming up with fighting these things when I don't hear about the music industry or movie industry dealing with this?
What can we do, as gamers, to encourage the industry to move forward in this?
ArcSyn on
0
Options
kaliyamaLeft to find less-moderated foraRegistered Userregular
My arguments are pretty good, guys. I'm glad I posted here, because now I don't have to worry about this law not passing.
Thank god I'm always right, and I like to pat myself on the back.
Arrogance isnt arrogance when it is truth.
While the legal precedent for what he posted may be debatable, the logical reasoning behind has more clarifty and meaning than any of the ramblings in the 5 threads on this issue we have every week.
Read the rest of the opinion - it comes out pretty strongly in favor of restraints on video games, just not in the crummy way St. Louis tried to do it.
Really, can we cut the "this doesn't affect me so I'm ok with it" stuff already? If they tried to pass a law that wouldn't let anyone under 18 into a library I'd still be pretty pissed about it, as I hope any adult with half a brain would.
I think your making some pretty sweeping assumptions based on a small post. If this bill passed my experience at the register might be a tad more inconveniant due to being carded, but that's an acceptable tradeoff in my view if it means finding a happy middle ground with those who oppose M rated content.
To simply assume that my view on the matter consists entirely of "this doesn't affect me so I'm ok with it" is a little insulting. I beleive that the idea of mandatory carding is a perfectly acceptable compromise with those who strongly oppose M rated content.
I'm sorry if I misrepresented you, but you were just the most recent one to say something to that effect.
Regardless of whether or not it is your only justification for supporting this, it shouldn't be used to justify support at all because it's just silly reasoning.
No, you can't restrict speech, in any way. This law won't, either.
While I agree with your destination, your point of departure is wrong and we need to stop saying it and believing it.
There are all sorts of restrictions on free speech. From obscenity, to slander and libel, to making threats, to limitations made by government actors on where and when you can say things, to perjury and lying under oath.
Ok, so let's just dismiss altogether the law at hand:
Should the industry, voluntarily, restrict the sale of movies rated R, music with explicit lyrics, games rated M?
If so, what can the game industry do better so they do not get targeted by these types of bills in the future?
Why is it that the game industry keeps coming up with fighting these things when I don't hear about the music industry or movie industry dealing with this?
What can we do, as gamers, to encourage the industry to move forward in this?
Develop, implement and enforce a rating system that isn't kind of shitty?
The ESRB is the video game equivalent of the League of Nations.
My arguments are pretty good, guys. I'm glad I posted here, because now I don't have to worry about this law not passing.
Thank god I'm always right, and I like to pat myself on the back.
Arrogance isnt arrogance when it is truth.
While the legal precedent for what he posted may be debatable, the logical reasoning behind has more clarifty and meaning than any of the ramblings in the 5 threads on this issue we have every week.
Read the rest of the opinion - it comes out pretty strongly in favor of restraints on video games, just not in the crummy way St. Louis tried to do it.
Yeah I;m not falling on any side of the fence. Its just that these threads are ALWAYS popping up. Free speech is an endless debate filled with misinformed individuals and intellectuals in equal measure and always devolve into a bitching mess.
The post I quoted concisely and clearly organises what a lot of people are trying to say. Just put threads like this to death. Every time a new bill is proposed that limits anything we have one and they always end the same. People get infractions, there is name calling and arguining over very minor technicalities. It has already begun and will only continue. Someone light the K signal we need some tidying up in here.
Im not saying we shouldnt discuss this issue, but as said DnD is a far far better place than the openness of G+T.
Regardless of whether or not it is your only justification for supporting this, it shouldn't be used to justify support at all because it's just silly reasoning.
Fair enough. What you see as "silly" I see as a realistic compromise. Agree to disagree.
St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."
-nteractive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., 329 F.3d 954(8th Cir. 2003)
Also: to the men in the thread saying 'I'm over 18 so I don't care', would you care if they passed a law making it illegal for women to buy video games?
Ok, so let's just dismiss altogether the law at hand:
Should the industry, voluntarily, restrict the sale of movies rated R, music with explicit lyrics, games rated M?
If so, what can the game industry do better so they do not get targeted by these types of bills in the future?
Why is it that the game industry keeps coming up with fighting these things when I don't hear about the music industry or movie industry dealing with this?
What can we do, as gamers, to encourage the industry to move forward in this?
Develop, implement and enforce a rating system that isn't kind of shitty?
The ESRB is the video game equivalent of the League of Nations.
St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."
-nteractive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., 329 F.3d 954(8th Cir. 2003)
Also: to the men in the thread saying 'I'm over 18 so I don't care', would you care if they passed a law making it illegal for women to buy video games?
...yes?
Granted I'm not of the apathy camp myself, but that's such a non sequitur I'm honestly a little confused.
St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."
-nteractive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., 329 F.3d 954(8th Cir. 2003)
Also: to the men in the thread saying 'I'm over 18 so I don't care', would you care if they passed a law making it illegal for women to buy video games?
Pfft, everyone knows women don't play or buy video games.
Also: to the men in the thread saying 'I'm over 18 so I don't care', would you care if they passed a law making it illegal for women to buy video games?
I would prefer it. Then developers can spend more time on manly games like GTA and pokemons.
Ok, so let's just dismiss altogether the law at hand:
Should the industry, voluntarily, restrict the sale of movies rated R, music with explicit lyrics, games rated M?
If so, what can the game industry do better so they do not get targeted by these types of bills in the future?
Why is it that the game industry keeps coming up with fighting these things when I don't hear about the music industry or movie industry dealing with this?
What can we do, as gamers, to encourage the industry to move forward in this?
Develop, implement and enforce a rating system that isn't kind of shitty?
The ESRB is the video game equivalent of the League of Nations.
ESRB works fine.
The fact that the only content rating system available to video games is completely voluntary strongly disagrees.
Ok, so let's just dismiss altogether the law at hand:
Should the industry, voluntarily, restrict the sale of movies rated R, music with explicit lyrics, games rated M?
If so, what can the game industry do better so they do not get targeted by these types of bills in the future?
Why is it that the game industry keeps coming up with fighting these things when I don't hear about the music industry or movie industry dealing with this?
What can we do, as gamers, to encourage the industry to move forward in this?
Develop, implement and enforce a rating system that isn't kind of shitty?
The ESRB is the video game equivalent of the League of Nations.
ESRB works fine.
The fact that the only content rating system available to video games is completely voluntary strongly disagrees.
How does this differ from content ratings for movies and music?
Numbers below are percentage of how often ID is checked based off of the FTC's study:
Average for retailers, videogames: 80% of the time, ID is checked
Average for retailers, R-rated movie theater: 65%
Average for retailers, purchasing R-rated DVDs: 53%
Average for retailers, purchasing unrated DVDs (tending to be worse than R): 49%
For videogames, Gamestop, the biggest 'gaming-only' store, checked ID 94%. Walmart and Best Buy checked around 80% of the time.
The retailers are policing themselves very well already.
I really like the idea behind the law - parents should know what their children are playing, and a lot of M-rated games should be restricted to children under 18 - but it is likely going to fail due to possible 1st amendment issues, plus it would make the ESRB ratings enforceable by law, and since the ESRB is not (yet) a governmental entity, that's unconstitutional.
Indeed. Hell, even I had my ID checked when I bought GTA:IV from Walmart and I do not look like a teenager. Hah, in fact I rarely even get my ID checked when I go to the bar!
I am all for this law. Though I doubt it will ever get passed. I think it would solve many annoyances. When people start shouting that a game made a kid violent, well then they can say, "Who the fuck bought the game for the kid in the first place?" Parents will have to start, y'know, parenting.
Axen on
A Capellan's favorite sheath for any blade is your back.
St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."
-nteractive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., 329 F.3d 954(8th Cir. 2003)
Also: to the men in the thread saying 'I'm over 18 so I don't care', would you care if they passed a law making it illegal for women to buy video games?
Ok, so let's just dismiss altogether the law at hand:
Should the industry, voluntarily, restrict the sale of movies rated R, music with explicit lyrics, games rated M?
If so, what can the game industry do better so they do not get targeted by these types of bills in the future?
Why is it that the game industry keeps coming up with fighting these things when I don't hear about the music industry or movie industry dealing with this?
What can we do, as gamers, to encourage the industry to move forward in this?
Develop, implement and enforce a rating system that isn't kind of shitty?
The ESRB is the video game equivalent of the League of Nations.
ESRB works fine.
The fact that the only content rating system available to video games is completely voluntary strongly disagrees.
FACT: None of the big three console makers will allow unrated content.
FACT: No major retailer will allow unrated games on their shelves.
Ok, so let's just dismiss altogether the law at hand:
Should the industry, voluntarily, restrict the sale of movies rated R, music with explicit lyrics, games rated M?
If so, what can the game industry do better so they do not get targeted by these types of bills in the future?
Why is it that the game industry keeps coming up with fighting these things when I don't hear about the music industry or movie industry dealing with this?
What can we do, as gamers, to encourage the industry to move forward in this?
Develop, implement and enforce a rating system that isn't kind of shitty?
The ESRB is the video game equivalent of the League of Nations.
ESRB works fine.
The fact that the only content rating system available to video games is completely voluntary strongly disagrees.
And if a publisher doesn't send it through the ESRB, the only distribution channel is online, for PCs, because retailers won't carry it, and Nintendo / Sony / Microsoft won't allow it either.
I'm surprised that so many people are for putting video games in the same camp as Porn, Cigarettes, and Alcohol.
Because they're totally the same.
I think it's a basic fact that some video games are designed and made for use by adults.
So why exactly should these games not be subject to the same restrictions?
Because suppressing the sale of an item by placing age restrictions which as has been shown with AO ratings also applies restrictions on who will carry it and what console it will be on should not be done to something that has no reason to be assumed to be harmful on its own to those who are not in the intended age group?
Khavall on
0
Options
AkimboEGMr. FancypantsWears very fine pants indeedRegistered Userregular
edited May 2008
This is a good thing.
AkimboEG on
Give me a kiss to build a dream on; And my imagination will thrive upon that kiss; Sweetheart, I ask no more than this; A kiss to build a dream on
0
Options
HenroidMexican kicked from Immigration ThreadCentrism is Racism :3Registered Userregular
St. Louis County passed an ordinance banned selling or renting violent video games to minors, or permitting them to play such games, without parental consent, and video game dealers sued to overturn the law. The Court of Appeals found the ordinance unconstitutional, holding that depictions of violence alone cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults, and that a government cannot silence protected speech for children by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority. The Court ordered the lower court to enter an injunction barring enforcement of the law, citing the Supreme Court's recognition in Erznoznik v. Jacksonville, 422 U.S. 205, 213-14, 45 L. Ed. 2d 125, 95 S. Ct. 2268 (1975) that "speech that is neither obscene as to youths nor subject to some other legitimate proscription cannot be suppressed solely to protect the young from ideas or images that a legislative body thinks unsuitable for them. In most circumstances, the values protected by the First Amendment are no less applicable when the government seeks to control the flow of information to minors."
-nteractive Digital Software Association, et al. v. St. Louis County, Missouri, et al., 329 F.3d 954(8th Cir. 2003)
Just lock the thread now. This is the answer to everything that we could possibly rehash over the next 10 pages.
No, no, no - look at the case law I cited a few pages ago. The real issue is whether the material counts as obscene - here, the law was just "violent" video games versus "M" video games, and whether the legislature went through the required findings about harmfulness to minors. If you watn to read the case this broadly, then having MPAA movie ratings would be unconstitutional too, and they're clearly constitutional.
Its pretty tough for the MPAA moving ratings to be unconstitutional since their existence and the enforcement of them is private (corporate) and voluntary. The precedent is as solid as a non-SCOTUS ruling can be.
The case law you're referring to does not say what you seem to think it says. The summary from oyez demonstrates that the hurdles for such content based restriction would not allow a ban on M games to minors
The Court held that the Act violated the First Amendment because its regulations amounted to a content-based blanket restriction of free speech. The Act failed to clearly define "indecent" communications, limit its restrictions to particular times or individuals (by showing that it would not impact on adults), provide supportive statements from an authority on the unique nature of internet communications, or conclusively demonstrate that the transmission of "offensive" material is devoid of any social value. The Court added that since the First Amendment distinguishes between "indecent" and "obscene" sexual expressions, protecting only the former, the Act could be saved from facial overbreadth challenges if it dropped the words "or indecent" from its text. The Court refused to address any Fifth Amendment issues.
If you're talking about the ALA case, that isn't relevant either. That referred specifically to requiring content in libraries to be censored in order to receive public funding. Requiring private entities to restrict the distribution of 1st Amendment protected information on a content-based metric is completely different. Caedere's citation is essentially perfect. It could be overridden by the current right-wing SCOTUS but the current precedent is that such a restriction would not be Constitutional.
Posts
Thank god I'm always right, and I like to pat myself on the back.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
Bzzzt! You should read the rest of the case, not just the strident dicta.It's only eleven pages. What it's really about is that the government has to show the link beween video games and harm before they can regulate it - but once they do that, they can do LOTS to prevent minors from seeing stuff.
A few things:
1) Violence alone doesn't count as obscenity - so things that regulate games with sexual content are OK under their standard.
But we have previously observed that "material that contains [**11] violence but not depictions or descriptions of sexual conduct cannot be obscene." Video Software, 968 F.2d at 688. Simply put, depictions of violence cannot fall within the legal definition of obscenity for either minors or adults. See id.
2) You need to have evidence showing that video games harm children. In this case, the evidence was crappy. If you have stronger evidence - more psychological studies - then it would be an OK restraint:
It is true that a psychologist appearing on behalf of the County stated that a recent study that he conducted indicates that playing violent video games "does in fact lead to aggressive behavior in the immediate situation [*959] . . . that more aggressive thoughts are reported and there is frequently more aggressive behavior." But this vague generality falls far short of a showing that video games are psychologically deleterious. The County's remaining evidence included the conclusory comments [**13] of county council members; a small number of ambiguous, inconclusive, or irrelevant (conducted on adults, not minors) studies; and the testimony of a high school principal who admittedly had no information regarding any link between violent video games and psychological harm.
Arrogance isnt arrogance when it is truth.
While the legal precedent for what he posted may be debatable, the logical reasoning behind has more clarifty and meaning than any of the ramblings in the 5 threads on this issue we have every week.
Some parents think it is the tool of the devil.
Some lazy politician supports it for free votes.
Law may or may not be passed, and immediately struck down.
I'm actually amazed that laws against pornography have held up, but there is a bit of research saying that can actually damage a growing mind. I think that's codswallop, but whatever.
Bullshit.
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
Actually, this is incorrect - this just came out today from the FTC:
http://www.ftc.gov/opa/2008/05/secretshop.shtm
Numbers below are percentage of how often ID is checked based off of the FTC's study:
Average for retailers, videogames: 80% of the time, ID is checked
Average for retailers, R-rated movie theater: 65%
Average for retailers, purchasing R-rated DVDs: 53%
Average for retailers, purchasing unrated DVDs (tending to be worse than R): 49%
For videogames, Gamestop, the biggest 'gaming-only' store, checked ID 94%. Walmart and Best Buy checked around 80% of the time.
The retailers are policing themselves very well already.
I really like the idea behind the law - parents should know what their children are playing, and a lot of M-rated games should be restricted to children under 18 - but it is likely going to fail due to possible 1st amendment issues, plus it would make the ESRB ratings enforceable by law, and since the ESRB is not (yet) a governmental entity, that's unconstitutional.
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
Should the industry, voluntarily, restrict the sale of movies rated R, music with explicit lyrics, games rated M?
If so, what can the game industry do better so they do not get targeted by these types of bills in the future?
Why is it that the game industry keeps coming up with fighting these things when I don't hear about the music industry or movie industry dealing with this?
What can we do, as gamers, to encourage the industry to move forward in this?
Read the rest of the opinion - it comes out pretty strongly in favor of restraints on video games, just not in the crummy way St. Louis tried to do it.
Regardless of whether or not it is your only justification for supporting this, it shouldn't be used to justify support at all because it's just silly reasoning.
While I agree with your destination, your point of departure is wrong and we need to stop saying it and believing it.
There are all sorts of restrictions on free speech. From obscenity, to slander and libel, to making threats, to limitations made by government actors on where and when you can say things, to perjury and lying under oath.
Develop, implement and enforce a rating system that isn't kind of shitty?
The ESRB is the video game equivalent of the League of Nations.
The post I quoted concisely and clearly organises what a lot of people are trying to say. Just put threads like this to death. Every time a new bill is proposed that limits anything we have one and they always end the same. People get infractions, there is name calling and arguining over very minor technicalities. It has already begun and will only continue. Someone light the K signal we need some tidying up in here.
Im not saying we shouldnt discuss this issue, but as said DnD is a far far better place than the openness of G+T.
Fair enough. What you see as "silly" I see as a realistic compromise. Agree to disagree.
Also: to the men in the thread saying 'I'm over 18 so I don't care', would you care if they passed a law making it illegal for women to buy video games?
ESRB works fine.
...yes?
Granted I'm not of the apathy camp myself, but that's such a non sequitur I'm honestly a little confused.
Pfft, everyone knows women don't play or buy video games.
I would prefer it. Then developers can spend more time on manly games like GTA and pokemons.
Because they're totally the same.
The fact that the only content rating system available to video games is completely voluntary strongly disagrees.
They are.
All are essential commodities.
Indeed. Hell, even I had my ID checked when I bought GTA:IV from Walmart and I do not look like a teenager. Hah, in fact I rarely even get my ID checked when I go to the bar!
I am all for this law. Though I doubt it will ever get passed. I think it would solve many annoyances. When people start shouting that a game made a kid violent, well then they can say, "Who the fuck bought the game for the kid in the first place?" Parents will have to start, y'know, parenting.
I think it's a basic fact that some video games are designed and made for use by adults.
So why exactly should these games not be subject to the same restrictions?
Gamestop would be the sexiest place on Earth.
Well, it depends... are they cooking instead?
3ds friend code: 2981-6032-4118
FACT: None of the big three console makers will allow unrated content.
FACT: No major retailer will allow unrated games on their shelves.
Self policing=successful.
This man has the right idea. I wonder if he has a newsletter.
And if a publisher doesn't send it through the ESRB, the only distribution channel is online, for PCs, because retailers won't carry it, and Nintendo / Sony / Microsoft won't allow it either.
Edit: Argh, someone beat me to the point.
3DS FC: 0817-3759-2788
Because suppressing the sale of an item by placing age restrictions which as has been shown with AO ratings also applies restrictions on who will carry it and what console it will be on should not be done to something that has no reason to be assumed to be harmful on its own to those who are not in the intended age group?
Method of enforcement doesn't put it in the same grouping.
Its pretty tough for the MPAA moving ratings to be unconstitutional since their existence and the enforcement of them is private (corporate) and voluntary. The precedent is as solid as a non-SCOTUS ruling can be.
The case law you're referring to does not say what you seem to think it says. The summary from oyez demonstrates that the hurdles for such content based restriction would not allow a ban on M games to minors Full decision here
If you're talking about the ALA case, that isn't relevant either. That referred specifically to requiring content in libraries to be censored in order to receive public funding. Requiring private entities to restrict the distribution of 1st Amendment protected information on a content-based metric is completely different. Caedere's citation is essentially perfect. It could be overridden by the current right-wing SCOTUS but the current precedent is that such a restriction would not be Constitutional.
QEDMF xbl: PantsB G+