Supreme Court rules Ca can't ban video games

[ZeroRyoko1974]

Well, the court got one right. Odd that the 9th court of appeals actually got it right to http://beta.news.yahoo.com/court-cal...143011848.html

[Soluzar]

Everyone keeps talking about "banning videogames" whereas the articles I've read ALL talk about restricting their sale to minors. That would be a... good thing.

[Reven]

Inb4thinkofthechildrengifohwait.....

[earsofdoom]

would i be correct in assuming they are also trying to ban TV, music video's, and movies? o wait they arn't?

[Tama83]

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Everyone keeps talking about "banning videogames" whereas the articles I've read ALL talk about restricting their sale to minors. That would be a... good thing.

Technically, it's the latter, but it could ultimately lead to the former since one way or the other it would give game ratings legal backing, which is ultimately unconstitutional, thus it would actually be a bad thing in both the short term and long term (among other things, the long term effects would be the gov't not stopping with games; they'd go after other media next). Either way, the important part is that the Supreme Court has sided with the industry on this one, just as most people had hoped.

[earsofdoom]

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Everyone keeps talking about "banning videogames" whereas the articles I've read ALL talk about restricting their sale to minors. That would be a... good thing.

Not necessarily, look at how that whole censorship thing is working for australia.

[Soluzar]

Originally Posted by earsofdoom

Not necessarily, look at how that whole censorship thing is working for australia.

Better yet. Look how well it works here in the UK.

It really does work well here, ya know? You've probably heard that there are ton of games we either don't get, or which are delayed. It's rarely because of content issues. The violent titles which are censored or banned in Australia often make it to these shores just fine.

What happens is that they get slapped with an 18 certificate, making it illegal to sell them to anyone under that age. All the GTA games get rated 18, as do the typical zombie / horror / gorefest titles.

I can only think of less than a half dozen titles which were ever banned, and that's dating back to the PS1 era. Several of them were subsequently altered by the developer to comply, and then were released. For example, Carmaggedon (anyone remember that one?) was released once the blood was turned green.

It actually does kinda work here. Which is why I'm OK with the idea that the government would control what a minor can access. In all the years games have been classified by age, we've hardly had any which were refused classification and thereby banned.

The problem with Australia's system is that they don't have a suitable category for a lot of games. Their classification system pretty much excludes the idea that anyone above their mid teens would be gaming and what is acceptable is judged by that standard.

[earsofdoom]

Originally Posted by Soluzar

Better yet. Look how well it works here in the UK.

It really does work well here, ya know? You've probably heard that there are ton of games we either don't get, or which are delayed. It's rarely because of content issues. The violent titles which are censored or banned in Australia often make it to these shores just fine.

What happens is that they get slapped with an 18 certificate, making it illegal to sell them to anyone under that age. All the GTA games get rated 18, as do the typical zombie / horror / gorefest titles.

I can only think of less than a half dozen titles which were ever banned, and that's dating back to the PS1 era. Several of them were subsequently altered by the developer to comply, and then were released. For example, Carmaggedon (anyone remember that one?) was released once the blood was turned green.

It actually does kinda work here. Which is why I'm OK with the idea that the government would control what a minor can access. In all the years games have been classified by age, we've hardly had any which were refused classification and thereby banned.

The problem with Australia's system is that they don't have a suitable category for a lot of games. Their classification system pretty much excludes the idea that anyone above their mid teens would be gaming and what is acceptable is judged by that standard.

I've never been a fan of rateing and banning for the simple fact that some games get special treatment and often its skewed by thoughts like "yep there's a boob in there, 18+." I also think its more often just an excuse for bad parenting: when some kid does something horrible just blame a video game no matter how flimsy the excuse or how the incident in no way is connected to a video game people will take it seriously.

I think anyone beyond the age of 8 has enough reasoning skill's to seperate games from reality, personally im surprised war table top gaming hasn't drawn much attention. I play a game at my local nerdshop full of space nazi's, sexual hedonist's, and zealots yet no-parent bats an eye at the soul grinder with a sculpted penis on it.

[Nomnomnom]

My head still spinning so I'm not going to like leave a well thought out reply.

Trying to ban a social aspect that's as common as smoking would be the dumbest move ever, maybe cali should try to ban it instead?

[Schadenfreude]

Government banning your games?


BAN YOUR GOVERNMENT.

[neiru_3]

What's up with California..are they becoming freaking communist there. No wonder they are in so much debt. They are trying to regulate everything.

[Melion]

Looks like Walt was worried over nothing, as usual.

[MechaFan]

I grew up on GTA + Manhunt as a kid; and i think i turned out alright! lol


Honestly i don't see how violent video games effect kids all that much.. Now, if they were going on about games like World Of Warcraft ruining kids lifes because of how much time they spend on them then I might agree.. I myself fall victim to that sometimes.. But never once did i feel like reacting a murder scene in GTA lol.

[Leader Desslock]

I personally find it ironic that the Federal Government is saying that Government cannot restrict the ideas to which a minor is exposed. Um... of course it can? It does all the time? There are actually laws which specify that certain crimes are more severe when certain ideas are exposed to minors, as opposed to other adults.

The distinction that the high court is making is, of course, content labeled to be "obscene". We can restrict that, but not violence.

Come again?

The funny repercussions to this decision:

1) There's not a single thing in this decision stopping consumers from petitioning companies to change their private sales policies to restrict sales to minors. If parents petition, say, Best Buy to only sell Grand Theft Auto to people 18+, and Best Buy decides to do that - that would be a private decision by companies who've decided to implement business policies regarding their sales to consumers, and as such, would be completely unaffected by this decision.

That's the next step I see happening, by the way.

2) There's not a single thing in this decision to prevent communities (from small-town to national) from defining gratuitous violence (violence produced in the prurient interest) as "obscene content", thus circumventing the court's current decision. I don't see this happening, but there's nothing in the decision to prevent it.


This was, in some senses, a dumb decision by the US Supreme Court. I understand it, but I think it was dumb. The Federal Government can and does restrict the content to which minors can be exposed. I think it would have been better if they'd have defined this at the national level, personally.

[Soluzar]

Is the sale of films on DVD (or other formats) regulated in the USA so that minors can only buy films deemed suitable? I understand you have such a system for seeing films at the cinema but I'm not sure if it applies to retail.