Court overturns ban on video game sales to kids

[ATCStewart]

We need something to talk about. What do you guys think?
http://old.news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110627/ap_on_en_ot/us_supreme_court_violent_video_games

My question to you: Should the government be allowed to intervene, and if they ban violent video games, is it in violation of the children's rights?

[[m'kay]]

And of course, they do this right after i'm old enough to buy the things on my own.

[WD-40]

Well...as long as they don't come out with a game like 'Kill the FBI Agent', I guess I'm okay. Sorry to say, but it seems the violence of the games do de-sensitize kids regarding violent acts toward others. Shooting a real gun at someone is not a big deal anymore...especially with gangs.

[ATCStewart]

Well...as long as they don't come out with a game like 'Kill the FBI Agent', I guess I'm okay. Sorry to say, but it seems the violence of the games do de-sensitize kids regarding violent acts toward others. Shooting a real gun at someone is not a big deal anymore...especially with gangs.

I agree, there have been studies showing that violent video games reduce empathy, and increase agressive thoughts in adolescents. It seems in today's youth, many conversations are spent talking about these games, or how I got ___ kills. I'm not a pacifist, but I do think violence in video games should be limited.

[(SWGO)Minas_Thirith]

Well...as long as they don't come out with a game like 'Kill the FBI Agent', I guess I'm okay. Sorry to say, but it seems the violence of the games do de-sensitize kids regarding violent acts toward others. Shooting a real gun at someone is not a big deal anymore...especially with gangs.

Well WD, this game already exists, i don't recall it's name, but it's mainly shooting up police agents, then taking down FBI and CIA....
Personally i don't think children should be able to buy these games, and people above 18 alwayes hate some 12 year old spamming the voice chat in a game.
So they would prefer it as well.

So unless their parents buy the game for them, knowing what it contains it souldn't be allowed.
That's my point of view.

[MATTHEW'S_DAD]

Well...as long as they don't come out with a game like 'Kill the FBI Agent', I guess I'm okay. Sorry to say, but it seems the violence of the games do de-sensitize kids regarding violent acts toward others. Shooting a real gun at someone is not a big deal anymore...especially with gangs.

Wow, don't play Grand Theft Auto San Andreas! You would NOT like it.

[toad]

The right to free expression means you get to say anything you want. The price for that freedom is that so does everyone else. As for kids being apathetic towards killing and death, I don't see that as the games problem or the governments. Its a we have a crappy parents problem. There is no easy cure for that type of problem.

[Matt-Chicago]

I think young children should have to have parents permission to play violent video games.
Therefore I support not letting children under 13 purchase adult video games.

[Duel of Fates]

If you want your kid to end up like Leggz, by all means, forgo your parental responsibilities.

[toad]

Ok skimming the brief, the nuts and bolts of overturning the law is below. The bill had no chance to begin with as it didn't allow for parental approval.

Full thing

(b) Because the Act imposes a restriction on the content of protected speech, it is invalid unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny, i.e., it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. R. A. V. v. St. Paul, 505 U. S. 377, 395. California cannot meet that standard. Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media. Since California has declined to restrict those other media, e.g., Saturday morning cartoons, its video-game regulation is wildly under inclusive, raising serious doubts about whether the State is pursuing the interest it invokes or is instead disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint. California also cannot show that the Act’s restrictions meet the alleged substantial need of parents who wish to restrict their children’s access to violent videos. The video-game industry’s voluntary rating system already accomplishes that to a large extent. Moreover, as a means of assisting parents the Act is greatly over inclusive, since not all of the children who are prohibited from purchasing violent video games have parents who dis-approve of their doing so. The Act cannot satisfy strict scrutiny. Pp. 11–18.
556 F. 3d 950, affirmed.