WASHINGTON (AP) – The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let California regulate the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying governments do not have the power to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed" despite complaints about graphic violence. On a 7-2 vote, the high court upheld a federal appeals court decision to throw out the state's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento had ruled that the law violated minors' rights under the First Amendment, and the high court agreed. "No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion. "But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed." The California law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each infraction. More than 46 million American households have at least one video-game system, with the industry bringing in at least $18 billion in 2010. Unlike depictions of "sexual conduct," Scalia said there is no tradition in the United States of restricting children's access to depictions of violence, pointing out the violence in the original depiction of many popular children's fairy tales like Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella and Snow White. Hansel and Gretel kill their captor by baking her in an oven, Cinderella's evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves and the evil queen in Snow White is forced to wear red hot slippers and dance until she is dead, Scalia said. "Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore," Scalia added. But Justice Clarence Thomas, who dissented from the decision along with Justice Stephen Breyer, said the majority read something into the First Amendment that isn't there. "The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians," Thomas wrote. Thank God common sense still exists in our justice system!
SO wait, does this mean that M rated games can now be sold to anyone no matter their age? Cause if so then this is kinda a bad decision. 7 year olds constantly exposed to the message that prostitution is perfectly fine, that everyone should be having sex whenever they feel like it with as many people as possible, and beating people to death in the most violent and graphics way possible for not even really doing anything to you will not bring anything good to society.
pretty sure it was referencing that power being given to the state. Either way it wouldn't have changed much, since the parents would still buy their brats the game and let them play it. So with that, I'm glad that they're keeping the burden of raising the kid on the parent.
Stores that sell video games will still card kids who look under 18 for M rated games. However, if that bill had passed, it would have impacted more than just minors buying content that was not intended for them. What's not said in the article is this: part of that bill stated that minors did not have the capacity to make informed choices for themselves and must have their decisions made for them by the government or authority figure (seriously, look it up, I thought it was funny). The really big issue with the bill was this: if that regulation had passed, it would have put strict bans and regulations on the content of certain kinds of video games (shooters especially). This bill proposed that, instead of making the individuals take responsibility for the content they or their offspring view, the government would ensure that the content of those games would be removed entirely. In essence, limiting what video games can explore in terms of topic and depiction. The people who wrote this bill and proposed it still believe video games are meant to be toys for children instead of what they are evolving into: interactive human experiences (aka movies with an interactive element). If that all sounds like mumbo jumbo to you, check out this video. They explain it better than I can. http://www.escapistmagazine.com/videos/view/extra-credits/1961-Free-Speech
Well as long as something as simple as stores still carding people who look young for M rated games then thats fine by me. If the parent decided they want to go ahead and buy some game for the kid then that is their issue. I just thought this meant any kid could go buy any game he wanted no matter what it was rated and the content in it. But since that is not the case, I am glad this did not pass.
The ESRB ratings are suggestions. Right now stores are not held legally accountable if they sell an M rated game to kids. However, it's usually store policy not to do this. The decision puts games on the same level as movies. Theaters don't let minors into R rated movies, but they are under no legal obligation to keep them out. It's just industry policy to prohibit this. The bill wanted to make it an actual crime to sell games to kids instead of just industry policy. The Supremes didn't think there should be any difference between games, movies and books. It all falls under free speech (in the majority's opinion).
Well its a good think this was not passed. Its insulting to parents like myself to see how people can't trust in common sense. Granted some don't have any and yeah, it does have a negative impact on a childs or young adults life. I am fully capable of reading the box on the suggestions the ESRB put out and make a rational choice whether to buy a game for my kids or not.