Guess who's a Stalinist?

[fossten]

Reprinted from NewsMax.com

Tuesday, Aug. 7, 2007 6:20 p.m. EDT
Schwarzenegger to Appeal Video Game Ruling


California Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger vowed to appeal Monday a federal judge's ruling that a new state law banning the sale of violent video games to children is unconstitutional.

Schwarzenegger, who signed the law in 2005, said many of the games are made for adults, and choosing games that are appropriate for kids should be a decision made by their parents.

The decision by U.S. District Judge Ronald Whyte echoes a recent string of rulings in other states where similar laws were struck down after challenges by video game industry groups.

The law had been on hold since the Video Software Dealers Association and the Entertainment Software Association sued California officials. The industry asked that it be overturned on the grounds that such games are protected forms of expression under the First Amendment.

Give it up, Ahnold. The SCOTUS will not be on your side this time.

 

[Calabrio]

If a parent thinks that game is appropriate, then they can go out and buy the game for them.

Unless this is just a poorly written law, this should not have been deemed "unconstitutional." There is nothing wrong with preventing the sale of a game like GTA: San Andreas to a 13 year old. No more so than it is to prevent the selling of cigarettes or pornography from them as well.

This doesn't violate the first amendment in any way. How do laws that are intended to protect minors, yet not infringe upon the "artistic expression" of anyone, Stalinist in nature?

 

[fossten]

Not firing on all cylinders today...

For some strange reason I skimmed the article and mistook the law for a law that prevented the sale of the violent video games, period. I missed the part where it was restricting the sales to minors only.

My bad. :Bang

 

[Iszi]

I'm not sure if it's actually law, but down here in FL there's some games (I think it's anything rated MA) you can't buy from Wal Mart without ID showing that you're of age, or a consenting parent present.

Seriously, how's this different from banning minors from R-rated movies? Or is that something that's just enforced by the theaters, and is not actually written into law? I hope the ESRB is on board with this law, and really anyone who isn't needs to be shot.

Edit: Did some research on the ESRB and MPAA via Wikipedia. Turns out that while the usage of the MPAA rating system is very widespread, there is no legal requirement (outside of a contract with the MPAA) for a film to be rated, or for people of certain ages to be denied access to films of certain MPAA ratings.

 

[formerknown]

I'm not sure if it's actually law, but down here in FL there's some games (I think it's anything rated MA) you can't buy from Wal Mart without ID showing that you're of age, or a consenting parent present.

Same thing in New Hampshire. I went shopping for a video game for a 18-year-old relative for graduation earlier this year. I bought some game, I can't even remember the title, but it was an MA game. The clerk at the electronics register was some 17-year-old zit-faced punk whp actually asked me for an ID. What a joke...

 

[marcuseightus]

They should stop all restrictions on children..Let them drink, smoke and watch bad movies and games. How else will they learn the free enterprize system and looking forward to a life of sidewalk curb sitting, as they sip their wine in a papper bag asking for spair change! Hay it worked for me and I turned out OK!!!

 

[MAC1]

So kids can't watch R-rated movies in a movie theater without a parent or guardian due to violence, sexual content, and/or profanity, yet they can go out and buy video games on their own with the same content. Maybe it's the cartoon like nature of video games is why courts see them differently.

Wait a few years when the difference between video game graphics and real life will be minimal. Will the courts then look at video games differently, especially when they're full of sex, violence and bad language? I haven't read the court's decision so I'm not sure what its reasoning was--most likely it was based on free speech?

 

[Iszi]

So kids can't watch R-rated movies in a movie theater without a parent or guardian due to violence, sexual content, and/or profanity, yet they can go out and buy video games on their own with the same content.

Read my above post, and Wikipedia's article on the MPAA film rating system. Particularly, the section on "Effects of ratings":

Legally, the rating system is entirely voluntary. However, signatory members of the MPAA (major studios) have agreed to submit all of their theatrical releases for rating, and few mainstream producers (outside the pornography niche) are willing to bypass the rating system due to potential effects on revenues. Therefore, it can be argued that the system has a de facto compulsory status in the industry.

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, or if the information on Wikipedia is incomplete, but this appears to say that there is no actual law written that says you must be 17 to see a rated R movie. While it is an industry set and enforced standard, the MPAA is not a government entity, and the standards for the rating system are not public (and, according to the Wikipedia article, apparently are very much subject to change more with industry demands than actual age-appropriateness of content) and therefore I highly doubt there is any law currently written - nor will there be one written - based on the current MPAA rating system. Theoretically if I am right on this, if one had all the necessary resources, they could produce an independent movie such as 300, or SAW, or anything else that the MPAA would call "Rated R" or worse (is NC-17 even used anymore?) and sell it to 5-year olds, if they just chose not to sign contract with the MPAA and submit the film for rating.

Is this morally and ethically right? Not really, but that's not the question I'm answering here. The question is whether it is law, and it appears it is not. So, if movies have no age restrictions legally imposed by the government, why should video games be expected to come subject to such laws?

 

[formerknown]

Someone correct me if I'm wrong, or if the information on Wikipedia is incomplete, but this appears to say that there is no actual law written that says you must be 17 to see a rated R movie

You are correct. Back in the 80's when that whole PMCC/Tipper Gore debacle was going on, the hearings and other lobbying going on in DC was for legislation establishing such a system by law. However, in a last-ditch deal, the MPAA and RIAA offered the voluntary system and the Gore's backed-off.

 

[MAC1]

Read my above post, and Wikipedia's article on the MPAA film rating system. Particularly, the section on "Effects of ratings":

So the MPAA system is not backed up by law, but, then again, no one seems to be complaining about the system. Maybe because most of us understand that we do need standards of decency, especially when it comes to protecting kids.