Interesting SCOTUS ruling on violent video games.

• majorspark

  

  The ruling made for some strange bedfellows. The court ruled 7-2 that the state of California can't pass a law that prohibits the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The left leaning Breyer and Thomas on the right dissented. The majority was an ungodly mixture of both right and left with Justice Scalia writing for the majority.
  
  http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2011/06/27/ap/extras/main20074672.shtml
  
  My opinion. Federal power run amok. The only thing this decision is consistent with is preserving federal power. A US state cannot decide what gaming material is accessible to minors? Yet the federal government can steam roll the states and demand that they adopt laws forbidding adults between the ages of 18-21 from purchasing an ice cold beer. And the SCOTUS upheld federal power to do so (South Dakota v. Dole).
  
  At least the federal government recognizes these 18-21yr olds are mature enough to tote the rifle to enforce our federal governments power in foreign lands.
  
  The logic behind the majorities opinion is baffling. The court concurred with the 9th circuit court of appeal that the law violated minors' rights under the first amendment. The first amendment is in the context of free exchange of political speech and promotion of ideas. Not the right of a minor to purchase simulated unlawful activity.
  
  The ultimate expression of our free speech rights in this land is that we can cast our vote for a representative that we believe will best vote according to our political beliefs. These minors posses no such right under the law. Yet the SCOTUS conveys "free speech rights" to them in their ruling. Truly baffling.
• I Wear Pants

  Are you kidding me dude? They nailed this decision.
  
  Unless you want to ban the Bible, any violent books, movies, music, theater, poetry, etc from being purchased by minors than this decision is clear.
  
  Scalia nailed it in one of the footnotes (footnote 4, page 9 of the decision).
  

  Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat.But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones. Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy

• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;816329 wrote:Are you kidding me dude? They nailed this decision.
  
  Unless you want to ban the Bible, any violent books, movies, music, theater, poetry, etc from being purchased by minors than this decision is clear.

  All of these things are not going to happen because a reasonable law was passed. We are talking about minors here. The use of the product is not being banned. Their adult parents can purchase is for them if they choose. State and local governments regulate the activities of minors in all kinds of ways. Are those laws unconstitutional as well?
  
  With this logic a state can't ban the purchase of cigarettes to minors because that means it will lead the state to ban them from purchasing all unhealthy things like; cupcakes, candy bars, pop, and fast food. You will have to show your ID to buy a Big Mac.
  
  My minor children have to show their ID to get into an R-rated movie unless they are with me. They can't have a checking account with out a parents signature. They can't purchase x-rated magazines and videos. The court has ruled that females have a right to abort their babies, yet most states have laws on the books forbidding minors from accessing this "right" and purchasing this service without a parents permission. I could go on and on.
  
  These are all reasonable laws. So was the California law. No one is losing any rights under this law. Sorry we are not on the road to totalitarianism because a 11yr old can't purchase a game that allows him to slit peoples throats for shits and giggles. Have big brother or Mom and Dad buy it for you.
• I Wear Pants

  So you would show the same support for a ban of the sale of the Bible, any violent books, movies, music, theater, poetry, etc to minors then?
  
  It's exactly the same thing.
  
  And your children have to show an ID for a movie because the industry has decided this. Not a law. It isn't illegal for a child to go to or buy an R-rated film or an M-rated game. The ratings carry zero legal weight.
  
  It seems that you think film ratings have something to do with the law, which they don't at all.
  
  [quoet]
  My minor children have to show their ID to get into an R-rated movie unless they are with me. They can't have a checking account with out a parents signature. They can't purchase x-rated magazines and videos. The court has ruled that females have a right to abort their babies, yet most states have laws on the books forbidding minors from accessing this "right" and purchasing this service without a parents permission. I could go on and on.[/quote]
  I addressed the movie thing above, that has nothing to do with the state as it isn't a law. The industry itself made those rules.
  
  A checking account isn't a speech issue so it's irrelevant.
  
  Sexual materials fall under some different rules.
  
  Abortion is not a free speech issue.
  
  Nothing you said refuted the courts logic which was correct. Free Speech rights are not granted based on the quality of the speech. As such if we were going to ban sales of violent games to minors we would also have to ban sales of violent books (which would include the Bible), films, music, theater, etc to minors. Video games are not a special form of speech and they deserve no more or less scrutiny than any other.
• fan_from_texas

  Most of the reaction I've seen to this comes from non-lawyers who don't understand what the issue was here. It's not about whether violent video games affect kids, or whether California's law was reasonable--that's not the question the Court was considering.
  

  majorspark;816411 wrote:All of these things are not going to happen because a reasonable law was passed. We are talking about minors here. The use of the product is not being banned. Their adult parents can purchase is for them if they choose. State and local governments regulate the activities of minors in all kinds of ways. Are those laws unconstitutional as well?

  You're missing the relevant standard. The question isn't whether California had a rational basis for passing its law; the question is whether California had a compelling state interest. The Court overwhelming ruled that it did not. This seems pretty reasonable to me, and it's a clear distinction as to why, for example, states can regulate smoking but not ban video game sales to kids.
  

  With this logic a state can't ban the purchase of cigarettes to minors because that means it will lead the state to ban them from purchasing all unhealthy things like; cupcakes, candy bars, pop, and fast food. You will have to show your ID to buy a Big Mac.

  Nope; as noted above, you're reach the opposite conclusion. A state CAN limit access to porn and cigarettes because the state has a compelling interest in doing so. A state CAN'T limit access to video games in the proposed way because there is only a rational basis for doing so.
  
  Here's a quick summary of the logic from Volokh:

  (1) Video games are within the protection of the First Amendment, just as are other forms of entertainment (and entertainment has long been seen as constitutionally protected, partly because it can embody ideas, including political ones).
  
  (2) There is no longstanding First Amendment exception that applies in this case, whether for depictions of violence, depictions of violence distributed to minors, or speech to minors without their parents’ permission. (The longstanding exception for distribution of pornography to minors does exist, but it must be limited to its historical scope, because the majority’s approach to the First Amendment exceptions is based on their historical recognition.)
  
  (3) Given this, the law must be evaluated under “strict scrutiny,” a standard that the majority sees as extremely demanding.
  
  (4) The law can’t be justified under “strict scrutiny” as being narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest in preventing harm to minors (the harm here is presumably the creation of habits and attitudes that promote criminal violence by children), because
  
  (a) the evidence that the state gives for its claims that watching violent video games leads to bad behavior is inconclusive,
  
  (b) the law is “wildly underinclusive” with regard to the interest given that it doesn’t cover other media that yield similar supposed effects on minors (similar according to some of the very experts whose work supposedly supported the law), and
  
  (c) the law is “seriously underinclusive” with regard to the interest because it allows parents, guardians, and uncles and aunts to get the same supposedly harmful games for their children. (For more on how this sort of strict scrutiny analysis has worked in the past, including some criticisms of this general method, see my Freedom of Speech, Permissible Tailoring and Transcending Strict Scrutiny, 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 2417 (1997).)
  
  (5) The law can’t be justified under “strict scrutiny” as being narrowly tailored to a compelling government interest in “aid[ing] parental authority” by “ensure[ing] that parents can decide what games are appropriate,” because
  
  (a) the industry’s voluntary self-regulation already “does much to ensure that minors cannot purchase seriously violent games on their own, and that parents who care about the matter can readily evaluate the games their children bring home,” and “[f]illing the remaining modest gap in concerned-parents’ control can hardly be a compelling state interest,” plus
  
  (b) the majority in any event “doubts that punishing third parties for conveying protected speech to children just in case their parents disapprove of that speech is a proper governmental means of aiding parental authority.”

  That seems pretty reasonable to me. Do you disagree? If so, why?
• I Wear Pants

  I'm convinced that if someone disagrees with the decision then they don't understand it. It's so clear cut.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;816416 wrote:So you would show the same support for a ban of the sale of the Bible, any violent books, movies, music, theater, poetry, etc to minors then?.

  This law bans the sale of none of these things to minors. Because I support a ban on the sale of cigarettes to minors, I must then be for a ban of the sale of all "unhealthy" substances a minor can put into their body. Your logic is faulty. I don't think the California law is that necessary. Parents should know what their children are purchasing. But the law is reasonable and does not squash anyones constitutional rights. I think the people of California are more than able to handle this. Don't worry you don't live in California. Little Johnny in Ohio could still purchase simulations of randam acts of violence for his own pleasure.
  

  I Wear Pants;816416 wrote:And your children have to show an ID for a movie because the industry has decided this. Not a law. It isn't illegal for a child to go to or buy an R-rated film or an M-rated game. The ratings carry zero legal weight.
  
  It seems that you think film ratings have something to do with the law, which they don't at all.

  
  I never said every limitation a minor has on thier activities is done by the state. Minors are limited by the state, local governments, municipalites, school districts, and private organizations. You just picked one that isn't because you can't explain how the others done by the state are taking away constitutional rights.
• I Wear Pants

  But unhealthy things are not protected specifically in the constitution. Speech is.
  
  Speech is protected under the 1st and it's all speech (with some exceptions for Pornography and such). But you cannot ban a particular section of "violent speech" (video games) and then not do the same to the others.
  
  What I'm saying is if this law was serious about protecting children from violent speech it would have to ban the sale of all violent speech (Bible included) to minors. That would still be stupid but it would at least make sense. What I take exception to is the singling out of video games. Why only video games and not books, movies, music, etc? It doesn't make sense.
  
  And from your perceived tone at the end there I can tell you don't have any respect for video games as a form of speech which is probably clouding your judgement a bit.
  
  Also, little Johnny in Ohio can't purchase violent games himself because the industry already has decided that M-rated games are not to be sold to people under 17 and damn near every retailer follows that rule. Another reason why not only does this rule not pass legal scrutiny but it's dumb as well.
  
  "Don't worry you don't live in California". You don't realize how precedent works do you?
• fan_from_texas

  majorspark;816453 wrote:This law bans the sale of none of these things to minors. Because I support a ban on the sale of cigarettes to minors, I must then be for a ban of the sale of all "unhealthy" substances a minor can put into their body. Your logic is faulty. I don't think the California law is that necessary. Parents should know what their children are purchasing. But the law is reasonable and does not squash anyones constitutional rights.

  Again, you're missing the point. The question is not whether the law is reasonable; it very well may be. The question is whether the law is narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. It doesn't--California didn't demonstrate narrow tailoring; they didn't demonstrate a compelling state interest; they wrote a law that was significantly underinclusive (for the reasons IWP listed above--if you're going to limit speech because it may make someone more aggressive, we would need to limit all sorts of additional speech).
  

  I never said every limitation a minor has on thier activities is done by the state. Minors are limited by the state, local governments, municipalites, school districts, and private organizations. You just picked one that isn't because you can't explain how the others done by the state are taking away constitutional rights.

  Well, four of those are part of the "state" (generic) and do raise constitutional issues, which have been litigated for decades now. The Constitution carves out specific rights, most notable of which are in the 1st A. (speech, religion, etc.). If the gov't is going to limit those, it has to meet a different test. Why is this so hard to understand? State laws about other things are subject to different standards.
• jhay78

  

  From the OP:
  

  The logic behind the majorities opinion is baffling. The court concurred with the 9th circuit court of appeal that the law violated minors' rights under the first amendment. The first amendment is in the context of free exchange of political speech and promotion of ideas. Not the right of a minor to purchase simulated unlawful activity.

  I'm trying to figure out how purchase/rental of video games = speech protected under the First Amendment.
• fan_from_texas

  jhay78;816490 wrote:I'm trying to figure out how purchase/rental of video games = speech protected under the First Amendment.

  
  From the opinion:
  

  Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And “the basic principles of freedom of speech . . . do not vary” with a new and different communication medium. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495, 503. The most basic principle—that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas,subject matter, or content, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573—is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test.

• majorspark

  

  fan_from_texas;816471 wrote:Again, you're missing the point. The question is not whether the law is reasonable; it very well may be. The question is whether the law is narrowly tailored to address a compelling state interest. It doesn't--California didn't demonstrate narrow tailoring; they didn't demonstrate a compelling state interest; they wrote a law that was significantly underinclusive (for the reasons IWP listed above--if you're going to limit speech because it may make someone more aggressive, we would need to limit all sorts of additional speech).

  I understand what the majority is saying in their opinion. You don't have to be a lawyer to get it. As I said in my opening post. I believe this to be an inconsistent ruling and abuse of federal power. The SCOTUS has ruled the federal government has the authority to compell states to make laws restricting not minor but adult from purchasing a legal product. Even though some states did not believe it was in their interest to do so.
  
  When you talk about "narrowly tailored" and "compelling state interest", these are subjective terms. I believe these terms are best defined by the citizens of the state who actually live there. I would rather have my state legislature deciding what is a compelling interest to my state than 9 people in black robes from their high and mighty perch in Washington DC.
  

  fan_from_texas;816471 wrote:Well, four of those are part of the "state" (generic) and do raise constitutional issues, which have been litigated for decades now. The Constitution carves out specific rights, most notable of which are in the 1st A. (speech, religion, etc.). If the gov't is going to limit those, it has to meet a different test. Why is this so hard to understand? State laws about other things are subject to different standards.

  
  "The constitution carves out specific rights"? I hope you are not one who believes they are limited to the ones specifically listed in the bill of rights. See the 9th amendment. The rights not listed are just as important as the ones that are.
  
  Freedom of speech in the constitution is primarily in the context of politcal expression for or against the government. That is the holy grail that should never be touched. I don't believe freedom of speech is limited to just political expression but outside of that non political expression has been reasonably restricted by all levels of government. I am sorry but prohibiting a 10yr old from purchasing a video game that allows them to simulate violent crime on other human beings does not limit anyones free speech and is not what the 1st amendment was meant to protect.
  
  "Compelling state interest" should be decided by the state that interest originates in. Not 9 people in black robes. Some who may have spent little or no time in a particular state. Why is this so hard to understand?
• fan_from_texas

  I'm not sure it's worthwhile to keep this conversation going, as I think we're talking past each other.
  
  How is this "inconsistent" with other rulings? Which rulings, in particular, are you referring to?
  
  "Narrowly tailored" and "compelling state interest" are subjective in the deconstructionist sense that words are only endowed with the meaning the reader provides them, but otherwise, they're pretty straightforward. They also have a very long history of explanation and interpretation to give us a pretty good idea of what they include or don't include.
  

  "Compelling state interest" should be decided by the state that interest originates in. Not 9 people in black robes. Some who may have spent little or no time in a particular state. Why is this so hard to understand?

  That's a ludicrous idea, and anyone who thinks about the impact of your argument on, for example, the civil rights movement, immediately sees the issue with what you're proposing.
  
  Listen, I get that you don't think the federal government should have any involvement with anything. But this isn't some commerce clause case--this is something that was appealed up to the Supreme Court based on how we've been handling these sorts of issues for 200 years.
• ts1227

  

  fan_from_texas;816533 wrote:I'm not sure it's worthwhile to keep this conversation going, as I think we're talking past each other.

  
  The entire politics forum, in one sentence.
• LJ

  

  fan_from_texas;816533 wrote: Listen, I get that you don't think the federal government should have any involvement with anything. But this isn't some commerce clause case--this is something that was appealed up to the Supreme Court based on how we've been handling these sorts of issues for 200 years.

  
  Bingo. It's not like the AG sued the state over this.
• queencitybuckeye

  majorspark;816526 wrote: Freedom of speech in the constitution is primarily in the context of politcal expression for or against the government.

  
  You've said this twice, and regardless of what the founders' intentions may or may not have been, you are wrong twice. The 1st Amendment goes WAY beyond just political speech.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "My minor children have to show their ID to get into an R-rated movie unless they are with me."
  
  That's never been a Constitutional issue, that has always been a business/film industry judgment. The federal power here isn't one of exclusion, but rather that of government restriction, following stare decisis this was a no-brainer, Breyer's dissent was the most puzzling.
• jhay78

  

  fan_from_texas;816507 wrote:From the opinion:

  Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And “the basic principles of freedom of speech . . . do not vary” with a new and different communication medium. Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U. S. 495, 503. The most basic principle—that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas,subject matter, or content, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573—is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test.

  I disagree. No one is saying or ruling that video games can't contain violence- that would be a restriction of ideas, literary devices, etc. The California law merely restricts who can purchase/rent the "ideas" expressed by video games (which raises another issue of whether simulated activities/video games represent an exchange of ideas).
  
  I don't see how that's different from the other restrictions mentioned by majorspark.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "The California law merely restricts who can purchase/rent the "ideas" expressed by video games"
  
  As opposed to books? The restrictions presented by Majorspark are either (i) actions, not ideas or (ii) Constitutionally protected.
  
  I agree with the decision, allowing the government to effectively censor games and act as an overlord is a poor precedent IMO - again this is RESTRICTING government power.
• majorspark

  

  fan_from_texas;816533 wrote:I'm not sure it's worthwhile to keep this conversation going, as I think we're talking past each other.

  No, I understand your points completely. Your arguments are compelling we just disagree. It happens. The SCOTUS decision was not unanimous either. Two of them disagreed. Maybe for some different reasons than you and I, but nevertheless disagreement.
  

  fan_from_texas;816533 wrote:How is this "inconsistent" with other rulings? Which rulings, in particular, are you referring to?

  fan_from_texas;816533 wrote: But this isn't some commerce clause case--this is something that was appealed up to the Supreme Court based on how we've been handling these sorts of issues for 200 years.

  I am talking South Dakota v Dole. I realize this is a ruling on the extent of federal power via the commerce clause. But in this case the commerce clause was being used as a justification to compel state legislatures to ban the sale of a legal product to legal adults 18-20. A legal adult American has a right to purchase any legal product he/she so chooses. See the 9th amendment. The enumeration in the Constitution of certain rights shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people . The right of free speech is no less than the right to free purchase. Free purchase is just not enumerated in the bill of rights. So its given a lesser value. The very thing those apposed to including a bill of rights feared.
  
  Inconsistent to me in that the court ruled that the federal government could compel a state legislature via the commerce clause to take away a legal adults right to purchase a legal product because some deem them to immature to make the purchase and use it in a responsible manner. Yet a state legislature banning a minor from just purchasing a legal product, but not ban its use by them is constitutionally protected via the enumerated 1st amendment.
  
  

  fan_from_texas;816533 wrote: "Narrowly tailored" and "compelling state interest" are subjective in the deconstructionist sense that words are only endowed with the meaning the reader provides them, but otherwise, they're pretty straightforward. They also have a very long history of explanation and interpretation to give us a pretty good idea of what they include or don't include.

  Look I understand reference to case law and its relevance to legal interpretations. But history also shows us some of those interpretations have been wrong. Just because there is historical case law out there does not mean we should be compelled to follow it. If a logical and reasonable argument supporting a different conclusion has merit.
  

  fan_from_texas;816533 wrote: That's a ludicrous idea, and anyone who thinks about the impact of your argument on, for example, the civil rights movement, immediately sees the issue with what you're proposing.

  Ludicrous? Why? Because at one point in our history some state governments stifled the civil rights of black Americans? So now all state governments should be forever be banished from being entrusted with safeguarding the rights of the people?
  
  You are an intelligent fellow. I know you know the history of the SCOTUS. They are no stranger to stifling the civil rights of our fellow citizens. With this logic they should never again be trusted with watching over our civil rights and to insinuate such suggest you wish civil right to be set back.
  
  You forgive the federal supreme court for their past indiscretion but not certain states. People change. Governments change. Even so the south today is populated with a lot of norther transplants seeking tax refuge. Its not 1850 and its not 1950.
  

  fan_from_texas;816533 wrote:Listen, I get that you don't think the federal government should have any involvement with anything.

  Where have I ever said this? You will not find it. We are discussing one aspect here. The federal government has a host of powers enumerated in the constitution. They need and I want them to be actively involved in all of them. In today's world I believe in certain circumstances that they need more power to serve the needs of the Union. All I simply believe that many of these powers should be granted via the amendment process.
  
  Oh well guess I am just a radical right wing nut bag who longs for the days of Jim Crowe to return.
• Manhattan Buckeye

  "So now all state governments should be forever be banished from being care entrusted with safeguarding the rights of the people?"
  
  The law wasn't safeguarding anything, again it was a restrictive law, hence the applicable scrutiny.
• majorspark

  

  Manhattan Buckeye;816846 wrote:"So now all state governments should be forever be banished from being care entrusted with safeguarding the rights of the people?"
  
  The law wasn't safeguarding anything, again it was a restrictive law, hence the applicable scrutiny.

  
  I understand the confusion. I was talking about being able to pass restrictive laws and still safeguarding the rights of the people. The SCOTUS should not have a monopoly on it. Their history stinks as bad as any other branch of government.
• I Wear Pants

  jhay78;816742 wrote:I disagree. No one is saying or ruling that video games can't contain violence- that would be a restriction of ideas, literary devices, etc. The California law merely restricts who can purchase/rent the "ideas" expressed by video games (which raises another issue of whether simulated activities/video games represent an exchange of ideas).
  
  I don't see how that's different from the other restrictions mentioned by majorspark.

  Because none of the restrictions he applied were a relevant comparison. This is nothing like alcohol, tobacco, or pornography.
  
  This is the same as banning books with violence, violent music, theater, art, etc from being sold to minors. Now, lets say you don't have a problem with banning the sale of all of those to minors there is still a massive legal problem in that you would have to have a much broader law because the law as it was pretty much was picking on the video games industry.
  
  First there should be no such ban on violent materials for children (in law that is, if certain retailers and industries decide to place restrictions on who they sell to that's fine (think the MPAA, RIAA, ESRB, etc)). But even if there were to be a law banning the sale of violent speech to minors basing it off some reasoning that it causes aggressive and criminal behavior to increase (which I would disagree with again) we would have to make it include all violent speech. Not just video games.
  
  There is really no reason to object to this decision because even if you think we should by law ban violent speech from minors (which is stupid but I digress) you'd have to have something against video games to want to only place that restriction on them.
  
  Also of note is that the video games industry (as well as the film industry) already do a pretty good job of prohibiting minors from purchasing these violent games/films. And without any interference from the government (state, local, federal, whatever).
  
  And majorspark, aren't you usually a "keep the government out of it type of guy" and a "not the job of the government to parent our children". I find it odd that you change those views in this case.
• majorspark

  

  I Wear Pants;816465 wrote:But unhealthy things are not protected specifically in the constitution. Speech is.

  
  Really? Have you ever heard of the 9th amendment? Are you saying government has the authority to ban the purchase of unhealthy things because it is not enumerated in the bill of rights?
  

  I Wear Pants;816465 wrote:Speech is protected under the 1st and it's all speech (with some exceptions for Pornography and such). But you cannot ban a particular section of "violent speech" (video games) and then not do the same to the others.

  I got it now. "Sexual speech" for minors = bad. Subject to regulation. "Violent speech" for minors = untouchable. Subject to no form of regulation. Unless of course it is a "hate crime".
  

  I Wear Pants;816465 wrote:What I'm saying is if this law was serious about protecting children from violent speech it would have to ban the sale of all violent speech (Bible included) to minors. That would still be stupid but it would at least make sense. What I take exception to is the singling out of video games. Why only video games and not books, movies, music, etc? It doesn't make sense.

  I can understand it. I have played video games. I have watched my kids play them. Violent ones. Not of the criminal nature. Don't allow it. War games mostly. I can tell you this pulling the snipers trigger on a video game and watching the blood spurt out the backside of his skull has a much greater physical impact than anything my mind could imagine in a book. Lets be honest. I am far more emotionally and physically involved in a game than a book. The California law does not advocate a ban on any video games. Period. If it did so I would be against it.
  

  I Wear Pants;816465 wrote:And from your perceived tone at the end there I can tell you don't have any respect for video games as a form of speech which is probably clouding your judgement a bit..

  I love to game when I have time.
  

  I Wear Pants;816465 wrote:Also, little Johnny in Ohio can't purchase violent games himself because the industry already has decided that M-rated games are not to be sold to people under 17 and damn near every retailer follows that rule. Another reason why not only does this rule not pass legal scrutiny but it's dumb as well.

  This is good. The state passing a law backing them up is bad? Industry does not get a pass on other perceived constitutional issues.
  

  I Wear Pants;816465 wrote:"Don't worry you don't live in California". You don't realize how precedent works do you?

  Yes I do. I fear precedent on the federal level most of all. It has an immediate assured impact on all 300+ million of us. State precedent has an immediate impact on the state. It may take decades for it to affect the whole union. If at all.
  
  Lets remember the law we are discussing is limited to minors and their ability to purchase. Not posses or engage in any "game". They don't even possess the free speech right to vote.
• I Wear Pants

  majorspark;817078 wrote: I can understand it. I have played video games. I have watched my kids play them. Violent ones. Not of the criminal nature. Don't allow it. War games mostly. I can tell you this pulling the snipers trigger on a video game and watching the blood spurt out the backside of his skull has a much greater physical impact than anything my mind could imagine in a book. Lets be honest. I am far more emotionally and physically involved in a game than a book. The California law does not advocate a ban on any video games. Period. If it did so I would be against it.
  .

  I, and many others, would dispute this. And even if it were true, there isn't really any credible evidence to suggest that this impact would go beyond the immediate and drive someone towards real deviant/criminal behavior.
  
  I can tell you reading Cormac Mccarthy's books has impacted me physically far more than any game. But that's not really relevant.
  
  Again it comes down to that I think you'd be of the opposite opinion if instead of video games this was the Bible they were restricting the sale of.
  
  What I meant by the comments I've made about the voluntary industry ratings systems is that at best this law is irrelevant because the industry itself already prohibits minors from purchasing these games. Or at least most of them.