Supreme Court Overturns California Violent Video Game Ban

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
The Supreme Court has overturned California's violent video game law. I am not sure why politicians continued to waste taxpayer money taking this all the way to the Supreme Court but at least it is over now. Thanks to Ramon r. and Jason L. for the heads up.

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.
Click to expand...
 
And the government is claiming they are poor while they are handling stupid stuff like this. What are we 14 trillion in debt now?
 
Inu said:
And the government is claiming they are poor while they are handling stupid stuff like this. What are we 14 trillion in debt now?
Click to expand...

Well, the federal government is 14 trillion in the hole with the national debt. The problem is(and I live in California) idiot states coming up with garbage laws like this in the first place that need to be struck down in a federal court wasting even more federal money(after wasting tons of state money, considering that CA is in the hole also).
 
Inu said:
And the government is claiming they are poor while they are handling stupid stuff like this. What are we 14 trillion in debt now?
Click to expand...

Not to mention, the state of Cali is still in the crapper, lol (then again, we always have been in debt since the 70s, as a state).
 
I like the judge a few years back, i think it was in Mississippi or something like that. He went on a long rant about how laws like this are bull shit and a waste of tax payer money. That they know other states have already tried laws like this, all have failed and will continue to fail and it is a fucking waste of tax payer dollars that could be better used else were that are being wasted on laws like this that are passed knowing full well from the start that they will be overturned meaning that they are tossing way tax payer money from the start.
 
I'd like to hear the reason behind the two naysayers in the Supreme Court.
 
Azhar said:
I'd like to hear the reason behind the two naysayers in the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

They were too busy yelling at kids to "Get off their Lawn" to bother looking at the case. So they went with the default stance of "When in doubt, vote no".
 
Azhar said:
I'd like to hear the reason behind the two naysayers in the Supreme Court.
Click to expand...

They weren't opposed to allowing minors to view the violent content. They were opposed to the fact that this gave parents less control over what media their kids were getting.
 
jeremyshaw said:
Not to mention, the state of Cali is still in the crapper, lol (then again, we always have been in debt since the 70s, as a state).
Click to expand...


California is the proof as to what would happen if the liberals had their way with the country.

Entitlements for everyone, outrageous laws restricting constitutional rights, slow and steady collapse of economy and social structure.
 
gamz247 said:
Funny, this is what people are saying about the justices who voted FOR this ruling.
Click to expand...

That's what everyone says about anything when something is decided the opposite of how they think it should be decided. That, and the person deciding it is a secret Muslim terrorist Hitler hell bent on ruining America.
 
From my point of view this is pretty inconsistent.
How can you bid someone from buying anything? Drugs, alcohol, porn, brutal slashers, ect... At least as long as the supreme court's ruling is in effect?

I'm gonna say this is bad form on the part of game developers who funded this bill. The only thing it now allows is minors to buy M-rated games :(
 
Serpent said:
Is porn protected under the same rules?
Click to expand...

That was actually the point that Thomas made in his dissent. His response in a nutshell:

Why is it okay to sell a child a game that depicts murder, rape, and torture, but not a magazine that shows boobs?

I totally get his point, and there is certainly something to be said about the logic. But alas, here in America "the sex is evil!"
 
jeremyshaw said:
Not to mention, the state of Cali is still in the crapper, lol (then again, we always have been in debt since the 70s, as a state).
Click to expand...

Well it is an uphill battle when every $1 spent on federal taxes gets 80 cents of funding to your state. Not saying that's the only reason, but large scale economics differ when you have 35M population vs a couple of million.

That said, how come movie theaters can keep kids out of rated-R movies?
 
rihno13 said:
From my point of view this is pretty inconsistent.
How can you bid someone from buying anything? Drugs, alcohol, porn, brutal slashers, ect... At least as long as the supreme court's ruling is in effect?

I'm gonna say this is bad form on the part of game developers who funded this bill. The only thing it now allows is minors to buy M-rated games :(
Click to expand...

No it doesn't allow minors to buy M rated games. It prevents the government from banning games to minors. It's up to retailers to sell them or not.

Unless I'm wrong about this? Can retailers create policies that prohibit minors from buying M-rated games without parental consent?
 
What a surprise, the 9th circus was overturned again.

As for the two naysayers, they sided with giving parents control over their kids access to these types of games.
 
rihno13 said:
From my point of view this is pretty inconsistent.
How can you bid someone from buying anything? Drugs, alcohol, porn, brutal slashers, ect... At least as long as the supreme court's ruling is in effect?

I'm gonna say this is bad form on the part of game developers who funded this bill. The only thing it now allows is minors to buy M-rated games :(
Click to expand...

Games can still be regulated just like movies. The point is there isn't a law that states it is a felony for a 10 year old to buy a R rated movie, or anything like that.

That is what they are stoping, there wasn't laws before about buying / renting games and there doesn't need to be now. There are ratings, stores can make the choice to sell to how they want. All they have to do is decide if they want to sell movies or games to kids and that is it. Most will not, they card you. if you aren't of age they don't sell it to you. There doesn't need to be any law that says if they do decide to sell it to a minor that they are going to jail for the next 30 years and being fined $1 million.

This is the same law that gets created and shot down state by state. Normally it goes about like this, "We are going to make it a class A felony to sell M rated games to anyone under the age of 21." law gets passed, it goes to court, they lose, law goes away, next state steps up "we are going to make it a class a felony to sell M rated games to anyone under the age of 21"....
 
Azhar said:
No it doesn't allow minors to buy M rated games. It prevents the government from banning games to minors. It's up to retailers to sell them or not.

Unless I'm wrong about this? Can retailers create policies that prohibit minors from buying M-rated games without parental consent?
Click to expand...

Correct, this doesn't change anything currently in place to stop them from buying them. it just doesn't make it against the law for a place that doesn't want to create a policy.
 
This from California Senator Leland Yee:
"Unfortunately, the majority of the Supreme Court once again put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children."
Click to expand...

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm sick of seeing "think of the children!" being used to implement censorship.
 
The_Law said:
Why is it okay to sell a child a game that depicts murder, rape, and torture, but not a magazine that shows boobs?

I totally get his point, and there is certainly something to be said about the logic. But alas, here in America "the sex is evil!"
Click to expand...
I think Thomas was more helpful to the fight against censorship in his dissent than if he would have been in the majority! :D Hopefully a few people will read that dissent and say "Hey, why the hell are we censoring artistic depictions of sex and violence anywhere?" and come to their senses.
 
The_Law said:
That was actually the point that Thomas made in his dissent. His response in a nutshell:

Why is it okay to sell a child a game that depicts murder, rape, and torture, but not a magazine that shows boobs?

I totally get his point, and there is certainly something to be said about the logic. But alas, here in America "the sex is evil!"
Click to expand...

I'm guessing you mean the disbarred guy. I'm on the opposite side though... since I think parents should be the one to decide it all.
 
fattypants said:
I think Thomas was more helpful to the fight against censorship in his dissent than if he would have been in the majority! :D Hopefully a few people will read that dissent and say "Hey, why the hell are we censoring artistic depictions of sex and violence anywhere?" and come to their senses.
Click to expand...

100% agree. I loved the point that Thomas was making, but rather than more censorship (for which he seems to be advocating), I would suggest it is a call to have less.
 
Azhar said:
No it doesn't allow minors to buy M rated games. It prevents the government from banning games to minors. It's up to retailers to sell them or not.
Click to expand...
But how does that differ from policy that prohibits minors from buying pornography?

Or could a place sell to a minor without any legal ramifications?
 
Now if we can get rid of the useless fucking age verification shit we have to put in too I will be happy. I am so tired of this bullshit that fucking parents make others go through because of THEIR fucking progeny.
 
Serpent said:
I'm guessing you mean the disbarred guy. I'm on the opposite side though... since I think parents should be the one to decide it all.
Click to expand...

I realize there was a push to have him disbarred recently (I think in Mississippi or Missouri, or some "M" state :) ), but he wasn't actually disbarred, was he? I didn't really keep up with the happenings on that story.

In any event, I agree that it should be up to parents to decide these types of things.
 
SF is just nuts. It's a gorgeous city with great amenities and I love living here but the local government is a travesty.
 
God yes!

I can picture it right now, the throbbing forehead, him threatening to sue everything under the sun to get his way, oh yes, picture it right now, a writhing, foaming at the mouth Jack Thompson over this overturned law

This just made my day
 
Agreed with the masses here. "Governmental parenting" is never good...

I have noticed over the years in my company (I work in financial data) that people that play games are actually much more likely to be successful in our little financial world; especially PC gamers.

The folks that are capable of following directions to build their own PC; or troubleshooting a driver conflict or something like that are much more capable than the 4 sport athletes that had the world handed to them in college.....
 
Can someone clear this up? Is it illegal for minors to buy pornography, or are those just retailers enforcing that rule for our benefit?

Either way, this ruling seems a little wacky to me.

Then again, anything the 9th circus opposes, I probably should support just out of principle.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top