Forums - Gaming Discussion - The US Supreme Court rules against California, gamers rejoice!

activision drop some cash and yea games are protected



Around the Network
oldschoolfool said:
I disagree with this ruling. People say leave it up to the parents,but the kind of parents you have are different then when I was growing up. Back in the day when you parents told you to do something you did it. They put the fear of god in you so to speak,but no aday's you have these parent's just letting there kids run wild and letting them do whatever they want. "I'm sorry I yelled at you little timmy;" this is the reason you always have govment,teacher's and other people always trying to step in,because parent's don't want to be parent's these days,plain and simple. For these reason's I have to disagree with this ruling.


worse yet they listen to elvis, rock and roll is the devil's music...



We're winners!



           

I'll drink to this victory!



"I don't know what this Yamcha is, but it sounds just like Raditz."

oldschoolfool said:
I disagree with this ruling. People say leave it up to the parents,but the kind of parents you have are different then when I was growing up. Back in the day when you parents told you to do something you did it. They put the fear of god in you so to speak,but no aday's you have these parent's just letting there kids run wild and letting them do whatever they want. "I'm sorry I yelled at you little timmy;" this is the reason you always have govment,teacher's and other people always trying to step in,because parent's don't want to be parent's these days,plain and simple. For these reason's I have to disagree with this ruling.

My foot is itching. I think I'll saw it off.

The quality of parenting is a problem, and that, not its symptoms, needs to be targeted.



(Former) Lead Moderator and (Eternal) VGC Detective

gamrReview - Arthur Kabrick | My All-Time Top 50 | 2013 Metascores

                                        

Around the Network

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.



Tag: Became a freaking mod and a complete douche, coincidentally, at the same time.



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.

Supposed to be buying, according to who? We have no proof that kids are actually more mentally damaged from playing M-rated games than they might be from playing E-rated games, so why not let the parents decide if their kid should be allowed to do something rather than letting the government decide it?

The ESRB isn't based on any substantial research in the field of how videogames affect people at different ages, it just looks at the different contents and says "Well, kids of this age probably shouldn't be watching this or hearing that.", which in reality means that the ratings are good for nothing other than informing of the contents of a game. That's fine if you're looking to buy a game and you want to know how bad something can get, but as far as the required age goes, you can't compare everyone to the same standard and get a fair result, much less one that should have an impact on the law.



....kinda good news.



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.



I...don't see why you're celebrating? I thought most of you weren't minors. Why the heck do you care then?



 

“These are my principles; if you don’t like them, I have others.” – Groucho Marx