1st Amendment Freedom for -18...

[Ronin13]

Just read this article:
http://beta.news.yahoo.com/supreme-c...142839213.html
And it got me thinking- not that it expressly matters to me because I haven't been under 18 for almost 10 years, but it does state that even if a game is "violent," no mention of rating, under 18 are still protected by 1A.

It defines a violent video game as one that depicts "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."

This kinda has me thinking that the ESRB and MPAA are big violators of the 1st Amendment... it shouldn't be up to nanny.gov to decide what -18 can and can't see or play, it should be up to the parents, if they even decide to have a say in the matter, as I've played Halo and Call Of Duty online with kids that state their parents just buy the game the kid wants and tells them to get out of their hair and play their video game. There is currently no filter on Netflix (available on popular video game systems) that prohibits a kid from watching a violent or sexual movie... Any of you wish to weigh in on this?

[Ridge]

What would be an even easier way to solve the problem is for parents to take some responsibility. They buy their 12 year old grand theft auto, and then get upset when little johnny has to beat some mafiosos to death with a baseball bat.

WTF were you thinking would be in a game with all that crap displayed on the box?

[SAnd]

This kinda has me thinking that the ESRB and MPAA are big violators of the 1st Amendment...

That ESRB and MPAA can't violate your first amendment rights. Only a government can violate your constitutional rights. The government may use ESRB or MPAA standards to form a law but the ESRB or MPAA is not the government.

The US Supreme Court appears to have ruled that it is not the governments place to regulate games. I agree if that is their actual ruling. The media is notorious for misreporting court rulings.

I would almost support a law requiring ratings stickers. A parent can always say that they won't allow any unrated game in the house. The second is a stronger argument in my opinion so I support the ruling about ratings stickers.

[Ronin13]

Well Sand, I would say good luck finding a game that's not rated by the ESRB, considering many companies like Gamestop, Walmart, Best Buy, etc. refuse to sell any games not rated by the ESRB. And there at those stores no one under 17 can buy anything rate M (for Mature) or higher when in fact the actual description of the rating M is:

Titles rated M (Mature) have content that may be suitable for persons ages 17 and older. Titles in this category may contain intense violence, blood and gore, sexual content and/or strong language.

The key word is MAY be suitable... well who decides at what age someone is suitable to tolerate violence, gore, blood, sex, etc? Certainly not a group of people sitting around some table looking at the content of things and going from there... maybe the parents should be making these decisions for kids -18. Same goes with movies, when I was 17 (old enough to go) and trying to take my 15 year old brother to an R rated movie way back when, they wouldn't allow it because it's policy. Well my mother buys (back then VHS) movies for us that are R all the time! And our parents figured we were mature enough to handle that kind of thing. WTF? Who are they to tell me what we can and can't handle or see? Let parents make the decision not some group of people randomly appointed to make these decisions.

[DeusExMachina]

All games are rated. It is the parents' responsibility.

The Constitution won out today. I am happy they struck this down.

It also provides valuable precedent that video games are protected free speech.

[Ronin13]

All games are rated. It is the parents' responsibility.

The Constitution won out today. I am happy they struck this down.

It also provides valuable precedent that video games are protected free speech.

While it's the parents' responsibility they don't let that happen when little Johnny goes to Walmart to buy the new Call Of Duty or other video game while mom waits in the car... the employees say to Johnny that at 15 he can't buy a game "intended" for 17+. System=Flawed.

[DeusExMachina]

While it's the parents' responsibility they don't let that happen when little Johnny goes to Walmart to buy the new Call Of Duty or other video game while mom waits in the car... the employees say to Johnny that at 15 he can't buy a game "intended" for 17+. System=Flawed.

There is no law preventing them from selling it to him, but stores can have policies preventing it. Stores are not forced to sell anyone anything. California was trying to force stores to have this policy.

[TS12000]

I do agree that there shouldn't exist law against it, but I also believe that a store can choose to do business with whomever they please.

And there it is, if the stores allow these agencies to exist and use those ratings as a control measure for who they will sell to that is their business. Wal-Mart isn't using the system to prevent kids from getting the games, it's using the system to prevent having to deal with screaming lunatic moms as much as is possible. "Sorry Mrs. our store doesn't sell these games to children so either your husband or little Johnny's brother must have bought it, not our problem".