All that this ruling did was get the government out of performing censorship.  (They never really did, since this law never went into effect.)  This ruling does not prevent private entities from enforcing ratings.  The ESRB will still rate games, and its retail members will still enforce the policies.  This means that minors will still not be able to purchase M rated games from Best Buy, Gamestop, Kmart, Target, or Walmart.

hey hey hey some of the best games are made in California.

Who are these people that want to ruin my/our gaming. O the Terminator and miss thing Leland yee.

The law was really a nonstarter, given that the self-enforcing system of the ESRB means that retailers aren't supposed to sell to minors anyway. Giving that the force of law wouldn't have changed much, it was merely distasteful from an ideological perspective of government regulation where it doesn't belong, but functionally it wouldn't have changed anything

That argument could be used in any number of areas where we restrict minors whether it be music, film, porn, cigarettes, alcohol, banking, driving, etc.. They all have gray lines where it's far more evident it's on an individual basis who can handle what, but we still have government put down lines in the sand(either firmly or loosely) on when it's generally appropriate. Even the best parents can't have their children under lock and key and know every last thing that goes on in their lives, so having stores step in at the appropriate times and further the goal is not a bad thing. An involved parent that doesn't mind their children having any number of the following things I mentioned can still purchase it for them, so yes I don't see the downside. The only people that feel championed by this are snot nosed teenagers that wouldn't have their parents approval to purchase violent software if this had gone the other way.

The way the game industry is getting behind this makes it seem they care more about continuing to peddle this to minors and not wanting it to affect that revenue stream, becuase I've seen nothing to support what they've been saying about how this gives them the freedom to express themselves. This bill wasn't trying to kill any developers' dreams, merely spell out who can purchase them.

I would miss Naughty Dog and thatgamecompany a great deal, to be sure, but it's still a small price to pay.

Where did those private entities come from though? The government breathing down the neck of the gaming industry. I'm not all for government getting it's hands into everything, but from what I've read about this, I don't see the connect with why this is so great for the industry. I don't see why developers are so happy about this and found this bill to be hindering their creative freedome, unless they just feel they can't financially work violent projects in without the undying support of the under 18 demographic.

I'm on the fence about this issue. I agree partially with OldSchoolGamer and partially with the rest of you.

PS Mrstickball the Government already teaches kids about homosexuality, sex education and other issues. If the Government is already going to educate the kids why should video games be any different?

As for Old School Gamer's point, all this would do is put the parent in charge. The law said minors wouldn't be able to buy M rated games , basically that means the parent would then have to permit purchasing an M rated game. This wouldn't fix bad parenting as Kantor pointed out. But it would mean parents would be directly responsable for what their kids play.

Now others have pointed out several retailers have policies against selling M rated games to minors. But guess what not all do. Also if the industry itself is going to ban the sale of M rated games to minors where the heck is the problem with the Government backing the retailers in their decision?

Also since I'm an adult from Canada I could care less what California does. Especially since its not that unreasonable.

If I have kids and I tell my kid he can't buy this M rated game, he decides to go buy it anyway. I'd be pretty pissed, now granted I don't think the Government should teach our kids, but heck the law would sure help me if I was a parent.

Also I'm sick and tired of five year olds on Halo or GTA etc...etc... I council at a summer camp. Last year a twelve year old came to camp and was obsessed with Left4Dead. All he'd talk about is hacking zombies to peices blowing up a tank. He started to scare the other kids talking about all the blood and guts and how their could be a zombie apocalypse. I had kids asking me "Are zombies going to take over the world". I finally had to talk to the kid, I was like "I liked Left4Dead too, but aren't you alittle young to be playing it". He told me his mom told him he couldn't get it so he took his allowance and bought the game anyways and plays it behind his mom's back. I told him that was wrong and he is too young to be playing Left4Dead.

Fact is if this was law little kids like that wouldn't be playing Left4Dead or GTA or F3ar! Obviously retailers aren't doing a good enough job enforcing their no selling M games to minors. That twelve year old should never have had access to that game, his parent said no and the game was obviously way to violent and gory for a kid his age.

I can blame bad parenting like Old School did but honestly if the Government lets minors consume this stuff they are taking the power away from the parent and allowing the children to consume anything they want. The parent should be in charge.

I mean as a fourteen year old you can't go see an 18A movie in the theater without an adult, you can't rent an 18A movie from Rogers without an adult. Why should a 12 year old be able to buy a M rated game without the consent of an adult?

The thing is, the ESRB is already this "grey line" for videogames, but it's not enforced by law. I totally agree that stores shouldn't just sell any game to any person, but it should be a matter of store policy on what to enforce.

Taken from the verdict (via Kotaku): "California's argument would fare better if there were a longstanding tradition in this country of specially restricting children's access to depictions of violence, but there is none.", so the Supreme Court disagrees with you.

The problem with every arguement against the videogames in this case is that it is assumed that violent video games affect kids in a bad way, but there is zero evidence to support that claim. It's no different than saying kids turn rotten from listening to rock and roll or hiphop. I'm not saying we shouldn't be cautious, but I think making it illegal to sell certain games to kids of a certain age is a step too far.

I'd have to agree that it probably doesn't benefit the industry so much as it benefits America. 

You said we restrict minors in film.  Well, the MPAA ratings are exactly like the ESRB ratings.  Nobody can get charged with a crime if a 9 year old gets in to see Saw XVI by himself.  Unless they signed a contract promising to obey the ratings.  Music?  I didn't even know there were effective ratings for music. 

This decision protects the First Amendment much more than it does Activision.