Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: Dos Equis on April 26, 2010, 12:28:42 PM
-
I'm okay with this because it deal with minors.
Supreme Court to decide if California can regulate video games
Associated Press
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court, wading into a clash between free-speech rights and laws protecting children, agreed today to decide whether California can ban the sale or rental of violent video games to minors.
The court will review a federal court's decision to throw out California's ban. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco said the law violated minors' constitutional rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments.
California's law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. It also would have created strict labeling requirements for video game manufacturers. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each violation.
The law never took effect, and was challenged shortly after it was signed by Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger. A U.S. District Court blocked it after the industry sued the state, citing constitutional concerns.
Schwarzenegger said he was pleased the high court will review that decision. "We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies," the governor said.
Opponents of the law note that video games already are labeled with a rating system that lets parents decide what games their children can purchase and play. They also argue that the video games — which the Entertainment Software Association says were played in 68 percent of American households — are protected forms of expression under the First Amendment.
The decision to hear this case comes only a week after the high court voted overwhelmingly to strike down a federal law banning videos showing animal cruelty. The California case poses similar free speech concerns, although the state law is aimed at protecting children, raising an additional issue that could affect the high court's consideration.
Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, said video games should get the same First Amendment protections as the court reaffirmed last week for videos.
Given last week's ruling, "we are hopeful that the court will reject California's invitation to break from these settled principles by treating depictions of violence, especially those in creative works, as unprotected by the First Amendment," he said.
Leland Yee, the California state senator who wrote the video game ban, said the Supreme Court obviously doesn't think the animal cruelty video ban and the violent video game ban are comparable. If they thought that, he said, the justices would not be reviewing the Ninth Circuit's decision to throw out the video game ban.
"Clearly, the justices want to look specifically at our narrowly tailored law that simply limits sales of ultra-violent games to kids without prohibiting speech," said Yee, a San Francisco Democrat.
California lawmakers approved the law, in part, by relying on several studies suggesting violent games can be linked to aggression, anti-social behavior and desensitization to violence in children. But federal judges have dismissed that research.
"None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable," Judge Consuelo Callahan said in the 9th Circuit ruling.
Callahan also said there were less restrictive ways to protect children from "unquestionably violent" video games.
The supporters of the law say the same legal justifications for banning minors from accessing pornography can be applied to violent video games. They point to recent Federal Trade Commission studies suggesting that the video game industry's rating system was not effective in blocking minors from purchasing M-rated, or mature-rated games designed for adults.
But courts in other states have struck down similar laws.
The video game industry also argues that approval of California's video game restrictions could open the door for states to limit minors' access to other material under the guise of protecting children. "The state, in essence, asks us to create a new category of nonprotected material based on its depiction of violence," Callahan wrote in the 30-page ruling.
The court will hear arguments in this case in the fall.
The case is Schwarzenegger v. Video Software Dealers Association, 08-1448.
http://www.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/20100426/BREAKING/100426015/Supreme+Court+to+decide+if+California+can+regulate+video+games
-
No way Jose.
-
It's terrible... They already Police themselves better than anyone else will.
It's crap.
-
Kids police themselves?? Are you kidding?
-
No genius, the videogame industry... We already have very tough regulations on game ratings as is.
-
Ah. I see. Your comments were so clear. ::) This isn't about warning labels, it's about restricting access to minors.
-
What buisiness of the filthy cocksucking government what games my kid plays.Its none of their god dam concern.How about the stupid ass incompetent government worry about paving the fucking roads and let us raise our own f'n kids without their help.
-
lol. I did run over a pretty mean pot hole the other day.
-
Does the government keep kids out of Movie theaters? Why aren't you paying attention to what your own kids play?
You see a rated "M" game in your house and you don't like it... get rid of it.
Pay attention to your own kids.
Funny how on "this" you're a bleeding heart liberal.
-
Does the government keep kids out of Movie theaters? Why aren't you paying attention to what your own kids play?
You see a rated "M" game in your house and you don't like it... get rid of it.
Pay attention to your own kids.
Funny how on "this" you're a bleeding heart liberal.
Ah shaddap about my kids fool. ::)
We already prevent access to plenty of goods and services that society has deemed harmful to children. This isn't much different.
-
-
I'm not talking about your kids... What kind of stupid statement was that?
I'm telling you that every family is responsible for their own content... period.
This is just like Tipper Gore and those liberals with the PMRC.
-
Tu - you forced me on this. ;D ;D
-
What buisiness of the filthy cocksucking government what games my kid plays.Its none of their god dam concern.How about the stupid ass incompetent government worry about paving the fucking roads and let us raise our own f'n kids without their help.
Good post Mr. Mimnaugh!
-
3333... I am glad I could bring out some of the old nonsense that Tipper Gore had back in the day.
This is the same shit.
It's ridiculous!
-
Dee snyder owned al gore. I will never get tired of that clip.
Ice T also nailed that song and Tipper Gore to the fucking wall.
-
I wish we could divide the United States in half, the people who want the government to raise them, and run their life's could move to the East Side of the Mississippi. The rest of us could go west and live free.
-
I'm not talking about your kids... What kind of stupid statement was that?
I'm telling you that every family is responsible for their own content... period.
This is just like Tipper Gore and those liberals with the PMRC.
It's your stupid statement. ::)
Every family is responsible for raising their own kids, but what we've done in many areas is restrict access to minors. That's why a minor cannot buy certain drugs, alcohol, porn, see R-rated movies without their parents, buy guns, join the military, etc., etc.
But they can get abortions without their parents' knowledge. ::)
-
I said the same thing last month and was attacked as a wing nut.
-
Apparently the general usage of the word "your" when it comes to a general populace is lost on you.
-
I wish we could divide the United States in half, the people who want the government to raise them, and run their life's could move to the East Side of the Mississippi. The rest of us could go west and live free.
Come on now! I absolutely love SC. Yeah, we have our problems like everybody else, but I do love it here.
Cue BB to be a government bowing neocon when it comes to "protecting the kids". Get the fuck out of here...the government has no place in this. If you paid attention BB most stores will ask for ID nowadays if a person looks pretty young when buying a "M" rated game; it has become company policy at many stores. I guess you don't pay attention or think sometimes though, once again the private sector governing themselves better than the government ever could.
-
BB aka "NANCY" is just worried about "teh children"
-
The argument of the ignorant is "its for the kids".Its a idiotic way to debate as when you use it you act as though those opposing you dont care about kids.Its the argument the government makes to ban steroids,recreational drugs,cencor music tv shows,radio etc. etc. Its always "for the kids'.I hear that doly Bill Oreilly use it all the time.We parents dont need your help or advise,keep it to yourself.
-
Come on now! I absolutely love SC. Yeah, we have our problems like everybody else, but I do love it here.
Cue BB to be a government bowing neocon when it comes to "protecting the kids". Get the fuck out of here...the government has no place in this. If you paid attention BB most stores will ask for ID nowadays if a person looks pretty young when buying a "M" rated game; it has become company policy at many stores. I guess you don't pay attention or think sometimes though, once again the private sector governing themselves better than the government ever could.
What is a "government bowing necon"?
I'm all for the private sector doing its job. I also have no problem with a law like this that really isn't any different than the plethora of laws already on the books. Would be completely different story in my view if it restricted what adults can and cannot purchase.
-
Beach... How's it feel to be a bleeding heart lib trying to protect society from itself?
-
Beach... How's it feel to be a bleeding heart lib trying to protect society from itself?
::)
-
I knew that would be your answer.
-
I knew that would be your answer.
That's all a dumb question deserves. :)
-
There's nothing dumb about it except your response... If you can show me how you're not trying to protect people from themselves and taking the power away from the parents to raise their children as they see fit, then I will aquiesce to your point and say nothing else about...
So far though, even your responses up to this point are still about taking the power to raise their kids away from the parents and putting on some other intrusive law.
That is a very liberal mind set... To deny it is just to lie.
-
There's nothing dumb about it except your response... If you can show me how you're not trying to protect people from themselves and taking the power away from the parents to raise their children as they see fit, then I will aquiesce to your point and say nothing else about...
So far though, even your responses up to this point are still about taking the power to raise their kids away from the parents and putting on some other intrusive law.
That is a very liberal mind set... To deny it is just to lie.
Let's get one thing straight: I couldn't give a rat's behind whether you think it's liberal, conservative, etc., etc.
Yes, you asked a stupid question. You weren't asking for dialogue. That's why you got the eye roll.
This one is much better. :) I need to show you something? Who the heck are you??
In any event, this isn't about "people." It's about minors. It doesn't interfere with parents' ability to raise their kids. That's absurd. If a parent wants to buy games, etc. for their kids they can do that. This precludes kids from buying material. As I said earlier, this isn't any different than numerous laws on the books that restrict the buying options of minors, including porn, etc.
-
Crazy Libs.
-
What is a "government bowing necon"?
I'm all for the private sector doing its job. I also have no problem with a law like this that really isn't any different than the plethora of laws already on the books. Would be completely different story in my view if it restricted what adults can and cannot purchase.
You just usually tout the neocon line until it's about the kids.
It's different because how harmful is a game to a kid? Maybe a kid has their parents permission to go buy whatever they want? Way too much government intrusion on California once again.
-
You just usually tout the neocon line until it's about the kids.
It's different because how harmful is a game to a kid? Maybe a kid has their parents permission to go buy whatever they want? Way too much government intrusion on California once again.
What? You said I was going to do a "government bowing neocon when it comes to 'protecting the kids'." What is a "government bowing necon"? I'm asking because there have been several definitions used on the board. I've never heard it used in this context.
Yes it's different because it involves kids. As I said, this doesn't prevent parents from buying whatever they want for their kids.
BTW, I was at the movies the other day and some parents had kids who couldn't have been more than six or seven sitting in the front row watching Brooklyn's Finest. I would never put a little kid in front of a movie like that, but that's the parent's business.
I'd have a different opinion if this restricted adults.
-
I love that Cali is chasing their industries OUT of the state with this junk. Cali has a deathwish. Did you see what I did there?
-
There's nothing dumb about it except your response...
Because he agrees on this issue, or perhaps even a couple of issues, makes him a bleeding heart lib?
Yeah, that makes sense...
-
What? You said I was going to do a "government bowing neocon when it comes to 'protecting the kids'." What is a "government bowing necon"? I'm asking because there have been several definitions used on the board. I've never heard it used in this context.
Yes it's different because it involves kids. As I said, this doesn't prevent parents from buying whatever they want for their kids.
BTW, I was at the movies the other day and some parents had kids who couldn't have been more than six or seven sitting in the front row watching Brooklyn's Finest. I would never put a little kid in front of a movie like that, but that's the parent's business.
I'd have a different opinion if this restricted adults.
Becaues you bow when you agree with something the government does and don't question it.
To be honest you contradicted yourself in your own statement...It's okay when parents take their kids to a violent movie, but not okay if they allow them to play violent video games? What if the child has the parents persmission is my point...this doesn't harm anyone and it isn't the government's role to raise people's kids is the point that everybody and myself is trying to make.
-
Government restrictions always work very well.Like the war on drugs,prohibition,kids cant smoke until they are 18,drinking age limits.Yes things definately get much better with the government setting rules.
-
Becaues you bow when you agree with something the government does and don't question it.
To be honest you contradicted yourself in your own statement...It's okay when parents take their kids to a violent movie, but not okay if they allow them to play violent video games? What if the child has the parents persmission is my point...this doesn't harm anyone and it isn't the government's role to raise people's kids is the point that everybody and myself is trying to make.
O.K. Got your definition of "government bowing neocon when it comes to 'protecting the kids'." Different, but got it.
I didn't contradict myself. If parents want to expose their kids to certain things that I consider harmful, they have the right to do so. Whether a business has the right to sell harmful things to kids is a different issue. Yes the end result is the same if the parent chooses to purchase inappropriate things for their kids, but that's the parent's choice.
I understand your point. I simply disagree with your point. I don't believe this kind of law amounts to raising people's kids. It protects kids. I really see no difference between this law and current law precluding the sale of porn to kids. Or an age of consent for sex. Or age restrictions regarding drugs and alcohol.
-
O.K. Got your definition of "government bowing neocon when it comes to 'protecting the kids'." Different, but got it.
I didn't contradict myself. If parents want to expose their kids to certain things that I consider harmful, they have the right to do so. Whether a business has the right to sell harmful things to kids is a different issue. Yes the end result is the same if the parent chooses to purchase inappropriate things for their kids, but that's the parent's choice.
I understand your point. I simply disagree with your point. I don't believe this kind of law amounts to raising people's kids. It protects kids. I really see no difference between this law and current law precluding the sale of porn to kids. Or an age of consent for sex. Or age restrictions regarding drugs and alcohol.
I sincerely apologize for jumping down your throat.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
-
I sincerely apologize for jumping down your throat.
I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.
No worries. :)
-
I'm with Breyer and Thomas on this one.
California ban on sale of 'violent' video games to children rejected
By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
June 27, 2011
Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has struck down a California law that would have banned selling "violent" video games to children, a case balancing free speech rights with consumer protection.
The 7-2 ruling Monday is a victory for video game makers and sellers, who said the ban -- which had yet to go into effect -- would extend too far. They say the existing nationwide, industry-imposed, voluntary rating system is an adequate screen for parents to judge the appropriateness of computer game content.
The state says it has a legal obligation to protect children from graphic interactive images when the industry has failed to do so.
"As a means of assisting concerned parents it (the law) is seriously overinclusive because it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents (and aunts and uncles) think violent video games are a harmless pastime," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority.
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer framed the law's intent differently.
As a means of assisting concerned parents it (the law) is seriously overinclusive because it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents (and aunts and uncles) think violent video games are a harmless pastime.
--Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority
"The First Amendment does not disable government from helping parents make such a choice here -- a choice not to have their children buy extremely violent, interactive games," he wrote.
At issue is how far constitutional protections of free speech and expression, as well as due process, can be applied to youngsters. Critics of the content-based restrictions say the government would in effect be engaged in the censorship business, using "community standards" to evaluate artistic and commercial content.
A federal appeals court in San Francisco last year tossed out the law before it took effect, after then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed it in 2005. He had applauded the high court's decision to intervene. "We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultraviolent actions, just as we already do with movies," the governor said. The onetime actor made his name playing characters engaged in similarly violent acts in such movies as "Terminator."
The legislation was designed to strengthen the current industry-controlled rating system, and would have placed an outright ban on the sale or rental to those under 18 of games deemed excessively "violent." As defined by California, such interactive games are those in which the player is given the choice of "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" in offensive ways. It also defined such games as those that would "appeal to a deviant or morbid interest of children and are patently offensive to prevailing community standards."
Retailers would have faced up to $1,000 fine for violations. The law would also have required game makers and retailers to place an "18" label prominently on excessively violent games.
In an unusual coalition, Scalia's majority opinion had the support of Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor.
Scalia noted the court had never permitted government regulation of minors' "access to any forms of entertainment except on obscenity grounds."
He said the California law was one of many similar ones over the years, which he called "failed attempts." He cited movies, comic books, television, music lyrics, even Grimm's fairy tales and "Snow White," for their violent content.
But Justices Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, while agreeing California went too far, nevertheless suggested a more narrowly tailored law might meet free-speech scrutiny.
"We should make every effort to understand the new technology" presented in these sophisticated video games, said Alito.
The First Amendment does not disable government from helping parents make such a choice here -- a choice not to have their children buy extremely violent, interactive games.
--Justice Stephen Breyer , in a dissent
Along with Breyer, Justice Clarence Thomas also dissented, saying the law's requirement of having parents purchase the games for their underage children was reasonable. "The freedom of speech as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors, without going through the minors' parents or guardians," he said.
The gaming industry sued in federal court and won an injunction halting enforcement of the law until the courts sorted out the constitutional questions. The game "Postal 2" was specifically cited by the state as potentially subject to the proposed statutory ban. The manufacturer, Running With Scissors, Inc., based in Tucson, Arizona, rates it as "M" for a mature audience only, with "blood and gore," "intense violence" and "sexual themes" as part of its content.
Other games listed by parent groups as being of concern are "Full Spectrum Warrior" and "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2," where players at one level can view terrorists slaughtering civilians at an airport.
The video game industry, as part of its appeal, sent several PlayStation video games to the justices to view, including "Medal of Honor" and "Resident Evil 4."
The game industry racks up $10.5 billion in yearly sales. The industry claims more than two-thirds of households have at least one member who plays video games.
The motion picture industry has its own self-monitoring ratings system, imposed decades ago after complaints that some films were too explicit for the general audience in what was seen and heard. The gaming industry says its ratings system roughly follows the same self-imposed guidelines, and ratings are clearly labeled on the packaging.
Similar complaints have been raised over the decades over children's exposure to pulp novels and comic books, in addition to pornography.
Efforts in at least eight other states to restrict gaming content have been rejected by various courts. Video game makers have the support of various free-speech, entertainment, and media organizations. Nine states also agree, noting California's law has good intentions but would compel law enforcement to become "culture critics" and "distract from the task of policing actual violence."
But 11 other states back California, saying they have enjoyed a traditional regulatory power over commerce aimed at protecting children, including such goods as alcohol and cigarettes.
The Supreme Court in recent years has thwarted repeated congressional attempts to protect children from internet pornography, saying legislation went too far in limiting adult access to lawful, but explicit, sexual content on the Web.
And the justices this spring threw out a federal law limiting the sale of graphic videos of animal cruelty.
The case is Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn. (08-1448).
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/27/scotus.video.games/index.html
-
I'm with Breyer and Thomas on this one.
California ban on sale of 'violent' video games to children rejected
By Bill Mears, CNN Supreme Court Producer
June 27, 2011
Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has struck down a California law that would have banned selling "violent" video games to children, a case balancing free speech rights with consumer protection.
The 7-2 ruling Monday is a victory for video game makers and sellers, who said the ban -- which had yet to go into effect -- would extend too far. They say the existing nationwide, industry-imposed, voluntary rating system is an adequate screen for parents to judge the appropriateness of computer game content.
The state says it has a legal obligation to protect children from graphic interactive images when the industry has failed to do so.
"As a means of assisting concerned parents it (the law) is seriously overinclusive because it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents (and aunts and uncles) think violent video games are a harmless pastime," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia for the majority.
In dissent, Justice Stephen Breyer framed the law's intent differently.
As a means of assisting concerned parents it (the law) is seriously overinclusive because it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose parents (and aunts and uncles) think violent video games are a harmless pastime.
--Justice Antonin Scalia, writing for the majority
"The First Amendment does not disable government from helping parents make such a choice here -- a choice not to have their children buy extremely violent, interactive games," he wrote.
At issue is how far constitutional protections of free speech and expression, as well as due process, can be applied to youngsters. Critics of the content-based restrictions say the government would in effect be engaged in the censorship business, using "community standards" to evaluate artistic and commercial content.
A federal appeals court in San Francisco last year tossed out the law before it took effect, after then-Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed it in 2005. He had applauded the high court's decision to intervene. "We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultraviolent actions, just as we already do with movies," the governor said. The onetime actor made his name playing characters engaged in similarly violent acts in such movies as "Terminator."
The legislation was designed to strengthen the current industry-controlled rating system, and would have placed an outright ban on the sale or rental to those under 18 of games deemed excessively "violent." As defined by California, such interactive games are those in which the player is given the choice of "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" in offensive ways. It also defined such games as those that would "appeal to a deviant or morbid interest of children and are patently offensive to prevailing community standards."
Retailers would have faced up to $1,000 fine for violations. The law would also have required game makers and retailers to place an "18" label prominently on excessively violent games.
In an unusual coalition, Scalia's majority opinion had the support of Justices Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor.
Scalia noted the court had never permitted government regulation of minors' "access to any forms of entertainment except on obscenity grounds."
He said the California law was one of many similar ones over the years, which he called "failed attempts." He cited movies, comic books, television, music lyrics, even Grimm's fairy tales and "Snow White," for their violent content.
But Justices Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, while agreeing California went too far, nevertheless suggested a more narrowly tailored law might meet free-speech scrutiny.
"We should make every effort to understand the new technology" presented in these sophisticated video games, said Alito.
The First Amendment does not disable government from helping parents make such a choice here -- a choice not to have their children buy extremely violent, interactive games.
--Justice Stephen Breyer , in a dissent
Along with Breyer, Justice Clarence Thomas also dissented, saying the law's requirement of having parents purchase the games for their underage children was reasonable. "The freedom of speech as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors, without going through the minors' parents or guardians," he said.
The gaming industry sued in federal court and won an injunction halting enforcement of the law until the courts sorted out the constitutional questions. The game "Postal 2" was specifically cited by the state as potentially subject to the proposed statutory ban. The manufacturer, Running With Scissors, Inc., based in Tucson, Arizona, rates it as "M" for a mature audience only, with "blood and gore," "intense violence" and "sexual themes" as part of its content.
Other games listed by parent groups as being of concern are "Full Spectrum Warrior" and "Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2," where players at one level can view terrorists slaughtering civilians at an airport.
The video game industry, as part of its appeal, sent several PlayStation video games to the justices to view, including "Medal of Honor" and "Resident Evil 4."
The game industry racks up $10.5 billion in yearly sales. The industry claims more than two-thirds of households have at least one member who plays video games.
The motion picture industry has its own self-monitoring ratings system, imposed decades ago after complaints that some films were too explicit for the general audience in what was seen and heard. The gaming industry says its ratings system roughly follows the same self-imposed guidelines, and ratings are clearly labeled on the packaging.
Similar complaints have been raised over the decades over children's exposure to pulp novels and comic books, in addition to pornography.
Efforts in at least eight other states to restrict gaming content have been rejected by various courts. Video game makers have the support of various free-speech, entertainment, and media organizations. Nine states also agree, noting California's law has good intentions but would compel law enforcement to become "culture critics" and "distract from the task of policing actual violence."
But 11 other states back California, saying they have enjoyed a traditional regulatory power over commerce aimed at protecting children, including such goods as alcohol and cigarettes.
The Supreme Court in recent years has thwarted repeated congressional attempts to protect children from internet pornography, saying legislation went too far in limiting adult access to lawful, but explicit, sexual content on the Web.
And the justices this spring threw out a federal law limiting the sale of graphic videos of animal cruelty.
The case is Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Assn. (08-1448).
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/27/scotus.video.games/index.html
Good
-
Thank goodness the VAST majority of justices realize how fascist this was.
Too bad others don't seem to get it.