I'm against it since it is another instance of the government wasting money and invading our privacy. We don't need the government to protect ourselves from ourselves. I can understand restrictions on certain controlled subtances (like alcohol for example) because of the side affects that may influence others. However, no amount of playing videogames can directly hurt another human being. Besides, the industry already regulates itselves which is good enough.

Throwing the First Amendment out the window is not a big deal?

A lot of people don't seem to understand that if this goes through state government will have a significant amount of power over the content of video games. A lot of game developers would rather cut content than face having to effectively have their game given an 18 certificate. Conservate states must be licking their lips at this prospect and perhaps moreso at gamers' naive indifference.

No i mean its not a big deal because it probably wont pass. if it does this is kinda suckish.

The state pretty much always has a lot of power. States can typically make laws that are stricter than the federal level. Take California for example where they have the strictest auto emission laws despite federal laws also being in place.

That's not that hard to ask an older friend to buy it instead of ourselves.

films are self regulated just like games already are.  At issue with this law is whether or not the government should be allowed to classify what content is appropriate for audiences.  

This is actually a very large issue, because if the supreme court upholds the law, it can then be translated into all forms of media, not just games.  One ruling will set a precedence.  That means you would soon fine government regulation of movies, music, books, tv, games, etc.  

The governments loose translation of "violence" could mean that many games get slapped an AO rating equivalent.  One possible outcome could be developers and movie makers having to drastically tone down their content to fit into some government agenda.  

This is a very big deal because the true purpose of this bill is to see how far the government is capable of censoring material from the American population.  This bill is targeting our first amendment rights and it is something that we need to stand against.  

true, but can you name a state that has power over the media?  like this law would give?

Then your older friend could possibly face a fine for buying it for you or another younger friend, or even worse, face jail time. Thats whats this new bill would inforce.

I'm not really sure how this violates the First Amendment, to be honest.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

We can ignore the religion part, because that has nothing to do with this.

The people can still assemble if they so wish.

Freedom of speech is, I'm guessing, the issue here. Now this really depends on the extent to which the government enforces this law. If they start censoring games and cutting out huge chunks, then yes, that is a violation of the First Amendment. If they unjustly ban a game, that's a violation of the First Amendment. If, however, they deem a game violent and prohibit its sale to minors, that doesn't really violate freedom of speech.

The reason I'm opposed to this law is that legally enforced age ratings are completely pointless. A perfectly mentally healthy 12-year-old can't buy and play GTA, but a psychotic thirty-year-old convicted assaulter who's been granted probation can legally purchase and play it? Age really doesn't impact the ability of a person to handle violence/language/whatever.

But in Europe, it's not that bad, because at least there is a self-regulatory association which, despite erring on the side of caution a little, is mostly correct in judging the amount of inappropriate content in a game and uses  a full range of age ratings. What is this law proposing to do, exactly? Set up a commission to decide which games are violent and which aren't? Or is it still the ESRB making the decision?