Gaming Controversy in the Supreme Court

[Seigmand Dezmar]

So I've been following this story going on in the gaming industry for a little while now and I figured this could make for some interesting discussion on the boards.

For those of you who don't know, California has been attempting to push forward a law that would, among other things, make the sale of some(or all) video games illegal to minors. The law is attempting some way of policing the level of violence accessible in gaming by restricting purchasing to only parents.

For those interested, there's a link to the hearing between the Supreme Court and members for and against the law here. Granted the exchange can be a little hard to follow if you aren't versed in law, but it makes for an interesting read if you can get past the tougher parts.

That being said, what do you guys think? Where does accountability lie when it comes to children playing games intended for a more mature audience? Is the ESRB not enough? Do you think interactive violence has a larger impact on a child than violence merely seen in T.V. or movies? Most importantly of all, do you think that a law that would allow only adults to buy games would actually help reduce children from playing those aforementioned games?

[Andy Jammer]

I remember reading an article of Game Informer talking about this law and people trying to push for it.

Well in my opinion the law would help reduce minors actually buying the games yes, would it stop children playing M rated games? No. Because the law I believe is not the solution to solving the problem, it is the parents and their parenting methods. Whose gonna say that the adult buying the M rated game is getting it for themselves? They could be buying it for a nephew/niece/son/daughter/younger cousin/etc. Not to mention if we think on a scale of money, gaming companies are gonna suffer if the law is passed. Unethical yes, but very true.

They can make laws, and they can make it harder for minors to buy those games, but the ultimate solution is good parenting. Hell, I have a few younger siblings that see a few, not ALL, but a few of the more mild M games. Such as the combat in Devil May Cry 4, but not the cutscenes. But we drill this one thing in their heads: what they do, on TV, on games, is not real and people can get killed if you actually fire a gun at them.

Not perfect. But it's worked pretty damn well thus far. But those are my thoughts on it.

[glitters]

lol actually it's society that raises the child, not necessarily the parents. =/ Being a former Education student I've gone through this discussion in classes several times, and it all leads to the conclusion that everything that a child interacts with raises him/her, not one source. The parents aren't the sole contributors to a child's upbringing (hell knows that if that were true, my sisters and I would be worse off than we are if not dead) and their values, nor are the teachers who they spend a large chunk of their days with outside of the home. Children spend a lot of time with their friends in and out of school and watch very carefully the world around them--everything contributes to something.

However, gaming companies can make laws all they want and it won't have any affect at all on anything for the reasons that anyone over the age of 18 can and WILL buy those games, even for the younger kids.
And it's been proven several times before that violent video games =/= violent children/adults. Again, this goes right back to the different influences are around children as they grow up--something somewhere will show a child that they can't shoot a guy's face off in the street. Police doing their jobs can show you that, and that's just a minor example compared to the countless that'll divert a child from growing up to think that violence is alright.

[King Roxa Hiaten]

Meeeh, I'm somewhat divided on this, I see why they want to pass the law and I think that the reasons for trying to pass it are ethical but I do not think it is nessecary in a way. By making a game less accessible to an audience all they do is make them want it more, take Condemned 2, it was banned in the UK due to it's graphic nature, they said it would be re-released without the content that had got it banned but people were interested, they wanted to see what was so bad, so people hunted down foreign copies of the game just to see a few moments of cutscene.

We are fickle people who want what we can't have.