Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Obama 2012

SCOTUS To Decide The Fate of "Violent" Video Games And Minors..

7 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

I'm half-way on board with California here.

I think that games rated M aka. 17+ should only be rented/sold to those of appropriate age. I mean that is really a given. If a parent is not present, then a store has no business giving games with the mature rating to minors.

I do not think however, that the type of violence described alone should be part of the ban to minors. I mean T aka. 13+ games have violence in them sometimes and you kill people at times too, just not in such a bloody way. I think it'd be a bit overboard to make those games be 18+ as well...

Personally I don't think kids should be playing violent video games like Modern Warfare 2, etc. It's a bit much really at the end of the day. I'm not saying it makes anyone violent, but at the same time it's a very adult thing, especially online when you're playing with other people who are cussing up a storm, etc. When you're hearing a bunch of 12 year olds online dropping the N-word and F-bomb it's kind of disturbing...

------------

http://www.gamespot.com/news/6268990.html?om_act=convert&om_clk=newstop&tag=newstop%3Btitle%3B1

California has taken the first swing in its Supreme Court fight against the gaming industry, as this week State Senator Leland Yee announced the filing of the state's initial arguments supporting a ban on the sale of violent games to minors. Yee expects oral arguments in the case to be heard this fall.

"I am hopeful that the Supreme Court will help us give parents a valuable tool to protect children from the harmful effects of excessively violent, interactive video games," Yee said in a prepared statement. "The Supreme Court has never heard a case dealing with violent video games, and considering the precedent set by the high court, I am confident that they will uphold our law as Constitutional."

Among the precedents he referred to are rulings saying that states can limit minors' access to harmful materials like pornography, alcohol, and tobacco. The written argument also says that many states have enacted laws regulating both sexually explicit and violent material to minors, and that society has an understanding that both influences be equally harmful to children.

"This is further reflected in the fact that violence can strip constitutional protection from otherwise protected material," according to the state's argument. "Sexually explicit material that would be otherwise protected for distribution to adults can be considered obscene given the violent nature of its depiction. No rational justification exists for treating violent material so vastly different than sexual material under the First Amendment when reviewing restrictions on distribution to minors."

Signed into law by Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger in 2005 but challenged in court before it could take effect, the bill sought to ban the sale or rental of "violent video games" to children. A "violent" game was defined as a "game in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." Under the law, retailers that sold such games would be subject to a $1,000 fine.

The bill would also have required "violent" video games to bear a two-inch-by-two-inch sticker with a "solid white '18' outlined in black" on their front covers. That's more than twice the size of the labels that currently adorn game-box covers and display the familiar Entertainment Software Rating Board (ESRB) rating.

In 2007, a circuit court judge struck down the law as unconstitutional but admitted he was "sympathetic to what the legislature sought to do." Last year, an appellate court judge backed up the original ruling. Months before the appellate court's decision, in an appearance on GameSpot's HotSpot podcast, Yee predicted that the dispute would be pushed to the Supreme Court.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Country: Philippines
Timeline

I think that games rated M aka. 17+ should only be rented/sold to those of appropriate age. I mean that is really a given. If a parent is not present, then a store has no business giving games with the mature rating to minors.

You're just another nanny state advocate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: AOS (pnd) Country: Canada
Timeline

You're just another nanny state advocate.

No, I'm leaving it up to parents to decide the fate of their children. If a parent is presnt and a kid wants to buy a game, then fine. A 13 year old dropped off at the mall shouldn't be buying 17+ games, movies, etc. on their own though.


nfrsig.jpg

The Great Canadian to Texas Transfer Timeline:

2/22/2010 - I-129F Packet Mailed

2/24/2010 - Packet Delivered to VSC

2/26/2010 - VSC Cashed Filing Fee

3/04/2010 - NOA1 Received!

8/14/2010 - Touched!

10/04/2010 - NOA2 Received!

10/25/2010 - Packet 3 Received!

02/07/2011 - Medical!

03/15/2011 - Interview in Montreal! - Approved!!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: United Kingdom
Timeline

The problem is that all of these rating designations are subjective - so they have to come up with some sort of content list to separate the type of content that merits a T rating, from the content that gets an M.

I have no problem with game ratings - the only issue I have is with censorship, forcing changes in the game to remove certain content (like the names of real world drugs in Fallout 3 because Australian censors objected), or removing footage of things like headbutts (which the BBFC used to be infamous for - it meant the difference between a film getting a 12 and 15 rating).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

PIke, you sound like you'd have enjoyed those Roman-era public [human] gladiator battles.

Edited by Booyah!

According to the Internal Revenue Service, the 400 richest American households earned a total of $US138 billion, up from $US105 billion a year earlier. That's an average of $US345 million each, on which they paid a tax rate of just 16.6 per cent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Filed: Other Country: Afghanistan
Timeline

There have been something like 9 laws like this and all high courts have shot them down.

I learned recently that the government in general actually plays no part in the regulation of motion pictures. The MPAA created their own rating system and guidelines...ie its not "illegal" for a minor to enter an R film.

So actually if SCOTUS were to rule on this and say that the law is constitutional then it would have a major impact on all media.

Edited by Sousuke

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
 

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
- Back to Top -


Important Disclaimer: Please read carefully the Visajourney.com Terms of Service. If you do not agree to the Terms of Service you should not access or view any page (including this page) on VisaJourney.com. Answers and comments provided on Visajourney.com Forums are general information, and are not intended to substitute for informed professional medical, psychiatric, psychological, tax, legal, investment, accounting, or other professional advice. Visajourney.com does not endorse, and expressly disclaims liability for any product, manufacturer, distributor, service or service provider mentioned or any opinion expressed in answers or comments. VisaJourney.com does not condone immigration fraud in any way, shape or manner. VisaJourney.com recommends that if any member or user knows directly of someone involved in fraudulent or illegal activity, that they report such activity directly to the Department of Homeland Security, Immigration and Customs Enforcement. You can contact ICE via email at Immigration.Reply@dhs.gov or you can telephone ICE at 1-866-347-2423. All reported threads/posts containing reference to immigration fraud or illegal activities will be removed from this board. If you feel that you have found inappropriate content, please let us know by contacting us here with a url link to that content. Thank you.
×
×
  • Create New...