badgenome on 27 June 2011
| Onyxmeth said: From what I gather from these proceedings, the government was trying to basically stop children from buying M rated games, which they're not supposed to be buying anyways, and was going to fine places that sold them to children? What have we really gained from that, and what would we have lost? If anything this decision takes the parents out of the equation, because they no longer get to be the facilitator to purchase a game for their teenager or preteen. The kids can now buy it themselves. |
The problem with the law is that it wasn't about M rated games but rather "violent" games regardless of ESRB rating. The Supreme Court ruled ruled the way it did on the basis that California was wading into the business of regulating speech itself.
If anything was gained here, I suppose it's that this sets a strong precedent that video games are a protected form of speech like any other.
