Supreme Court ruling is in: no ban on violent games

[Herschel Yamamoto]

I see nothing wrong with banning the sale of GTA or Manhunt to children. If the parent decides their child is allowed to play it, they can buy the game for them.

Fortunately for us, James Madison is smarter dead than you are alive.

A bit hypocritical of him to ban swearing on TV I think.

Yeah, that was kind of a dick move on his part.

(The rationale is that the government owns the airwaves, which is why non-broadcast TV like HBO can do whatever they want. Still, fuck the FCC right in their stupid faces.)

[Hels]

[quote=Herschel Yamamoto]

I see nothing wrong with banning the sale of GTA or Manhunt to children. If the parent decides their child is allowed to play it, they can buy the game for them.

Fortunately for us, James Madison is smarter dead than you are alive.

A bit hypocritical of him to ban swearing on TV I think.

Yeah, that was kind of a dick move on his part.

(The rationale is that the government owns the airwaves, which is why non-broadcast TV like HBO can do whatever they want. Still, fuck the FCC right in their stupid faces.)[/quote:mv3187n5]
+1 in fuck FCC.

Also Buceph is retarded but sounds so sexy so I still <3 him.

[TurielD]

[quote=Herschel Yamamoto]

I see nothing wrong with banning the sale of GTA or Manhunt to children. If the parent decides their child is allowed to play it, they can buy the game for them.

Fortunately for us, James Madison is smarter dead than you are alive.

A bit hypocritical of him to ban swearing on TV I think.

Yeah, that was kind of a dick move on his part.

(The rationale is that the government owns the airwaves, which is why non-broadcast TV like HBO can do whatever they want. Still, fuck the FCC right in their stupid faces.)[/quote:ae742yve]


And we love HBO for it

Buceph, I don't entirely disagree with you, I can see a case for limiting children's access to certain things... but what makes games special? The argument has been made many times and it has always been held that there should be no law preventing access to expression and art, the cost to free speech is too great in comparison to the very much unproven gains for child well-being. Comparing mortal combat to cigarettes is too much of a stretch to justify putting legal hurdles on the sale games beyond the already very reasonable volluntary rating system that is in place.

[Mendolorian Girl]

Can someone clear up the current situation over there? In the UK games have ratings the same as movies do, and if you're not that age or older then you can't buy it. Parents are able to buy the games if they decide that it's suitable for their kid, it's just a guidance.

Is this not how it works in the US?

[TimMc]

Here in the UK its illegal to sell 18 rated games to minors, and I see no real problem with that. If their parents don't care, they can buy it for them like alcohol.

Anyone who thinks educating children will stop them from doing it is retarded. My parents educated their children to be conservative in everything, and we al went the opposite way since it is impossible to monitor your child 24/7. There has to be some limitations for children, steadily released over time.

This isn't an issue over freedom of speech either. Children don't have many rights, which are given at adulthood - voting, smoking, drinking, joining the military, freedom of movement away from parents. The creator can still manufacture and sell his game, just not to children, which surely was the intention anyway.

[TurielD]

Here in the UK its illegal to sell 18 rated games to minors, and I see no real problem with that. If their parents don't care, they can buy it for them like alcohol.

Anyone who thinks educating children will stop them from doing it is retarded. My parents educated their children to be conservative in everything, and we al went the opposite way since it is impossible to monitor your child 24/7. There has to be some limitations for children, steadily released over time.

This isn't an issue over freedom of speech either. Children don't have many rights, which are given at adulthood - voting, smoking, drinking, joining the military, freedom of movement away from parents. The creator can still manufacture and sell his game, just not to children, which surely was the intention anyway.

When a 14 year old buys an 18 rated game through paypal&Steam in the UK, can the parents then sue them for thousands of pounds for corrupting their innocent spawn? Would the UK government slap a fine on them for doing so?

[TimMc]

Nah I'm fairly sure that the child entering a fake birthday would release Steam from liability. However if the child went into WHSmiths and bought the 18 game, the shop keeper would get fired (likely) and the shop fined.

[RazoR]

Anyone who thinks educating children will stop them from doing it is retarded. My parents educated their children to be conservative in everything, and we al went the opposite way since it is impossible to monitor your child 24/7.

Education is not fascism.

Try again after you get the concept.

[Mrenda]

This is more of an American problem than anything else. Other countries don't have the constitutional issues where limiting children's access to things would have a profound impact on what adults have access to. We've already outlined through the courts the delineation between what adults have access to and what children have access to. And just because children are refused access doesn't mean that the film, tv show or game is somehow marked as different in comparison to other forms of media (like it is with porn and obscenity in Murka.)

It's a problem in America because it's deemed that children have the same speech rights as adults. When in actuality there are plenty of things that are off limits to them. It's just America makes a big deal over this one case that doesn't match up with the other aspects of their limitations.

I have no problem with classifications boards. There have been fuck all games banned (Manhunt 2 the only exception, and that was allowed after some modification) There have been fuck all films banned, and in the cases where something has been banned, the appeals system has worked. There is literally nothing banned that I can reasonably believe anyone would want access to on an artistic or political level. This is coming from a country that was deeply Catholic, and which our then President had under strict control with shitloads of stuff banned. This all seems rather prosaic because we've been through all this already, and overcome the great evil and now have a system that works.

Limiting the rights of children isn't an "out-there" concept. There is tonnes of things they don't have access to and can't do. It's only the knock on implications for adults due to the way the law is structured that I would have a problem with. That children are banned from pornography through some legal loophole jumping proves that this isn't an absolute. The problem is that porn is defined as "obscenity" and classifying anything else as such is where the problem occurs. Freedom of speech is already curtailed, it's just a matter of delineation that it comes down to.

And I have a much bigger problem with the monopolisation of the industry than I do with my own governmets classifications' system. The idea that certain games will simply not be stocked by virtually every games store and certain films will not be shown by virtually every cinema, all because of "standards" they've agreed to is to me far more dangerous than what we have. Here we have a system whereby our government, and thus the state and citizenry appoint people, and which is open to judicial review. So even if the board fails, even if the government fails and even if the courts fail, we can still change the system through the electoral process. In America it seems that the big-business decides what is and isn't right for America. That someone solely concerned with profit margins and appeasing investors is in control is far more worrisome for me.

When a 14 year old buys an 18 rated game through paypal&Steam in the UK, can the parents then sue them for thousands of pounds for corrupting their innocent spawn? Would the UK government slap a fine on them for doing so?

Nope. Even if he bought it from a high-street shop while screaming "I'm 14 and am planning on virtually fucking a hooker then killing her to get my money back" there wouldn't be a case. Criminal wrongdoing doesn't inviolabaly create a tort. And seeing as the suitability of games only has a broad moral effect rather than an acute instantiated effect there would be nothing to sue over. The mother or father could refer the situation to the investigatory body and have the shop investigated though.

[dr axler]

Anyone who thinks educating children will stop them from doing it is retarded. My parents educated their children to be conservative in everything, and we al went the opposite way since it is impossible to monitor your child 24/7.

Education is not fascism.

Try again after you get the concept.

this

quoting oneself ftw...

I guess its cause I was one of the few children who was allowed to have a PC with internet connection in his room which could be locked (through elementary school and then through high school). Most of my friends didn't because that was unheard of. Their parents thought it would stop them from studying or something. most children that I know of today still don't. I think its stupid because that liberty that I had made a great impact on who I am today. I educated myself through the freedom of the internet on lots of things. Learned how to rip games, then later basic programming and am now studying computer science. That liberty had a huge impact on my life.
While this might sound narcissistic I think I turned out pretty ok. This supposedly makes no sense cause my parents had little time and didn't do a lot of parenting as evident in my freedom. Whereas as some of those friends with lots of "parenting" and restrictions all around (on tv time, internet time...) turned out irresponsible and unable to take care of themselves.
Its like when a child fails at a certain class in school and then parents do the homework for him in say physics or maths. Then after a while he comes to a lvl of difficulty they can no longer do. Then what? Hire a tutor to tutor a child that does not know the basics and is therefore unable to learn?
He needs to make it on his own. Posing limitations and overprotecting will result in a person who is unable to take care of themselves. Overparenting is bad parenting. Yes you are way way smarter then your kid and know what is good for him but you cant just tell him that. You cant ban something from him, tell him its for his own good and expect he will understand. He needs to come to those conclusions himself. How you guide him on this process is in my opinion what makes a good parent.

[Brisi]

"Oh noes shooting pixels kills children's brains. Also hearing swear words in music corrupts the children. Also John McClane killing and maiming terrorists on film makes our children want to go out and do it themselves! Whatever will we do?!?! Oh, and worse than all that are titties. If a child see titties they're gonna be scared for life. Make titties illegal!"

If there ever was a more appropriate time for a :lolus: I don't know. At least the Supreme Court has some sense.

[RazoR]

Hell, my mother shared a joint with me when i was 14.

I now get high only on occasion with friends less than 10 times a year.

[Mrenda]

Murcans in blind "Der constitution" non-shock

[Mrenda]

Murcans in blind "Der constitution" non-shock

I think this is one of those situations where the US constitution/supreme court did something right, do you see any negative outcomes in the OP?

Good job on understanding subtelty there.

[indeterminacy]

Heh, poor parents! Their rights getting violated by gamestores not doing their job for them.

This. And, it's simply not any governments job (fed, state, local) to determine what anybody (child or not) has an opportunity to see. Allowing this type of law to stand would be a dangerous precedent which nothing good would come of.