Recent Supreme Court ruling about video games

Link in case you didn't know (Just a link, I didn't read into any bias in the article)

But basically everyone is saying "win for the gammers!" I really don't see how this is a win. I agree that the video game industry should regulate itself. The law that was removed was only enforcing something that was/should already being enforced. Which was preventing the sale of M+ games to minors. So how is this a win that means anything?

Only difference now theres no "fine." Perhaps its more of the idea that the government is interfering with our lives, but if this is really the problem, then we should look at all of the entertainment industry. Movies for instance, why isn't this being policed?

But more or less im trying to get other opinions - perhaps some clarification, but more or less to spur a debate on some quiet forums.

I think violent or pornographic content is not for youngsters. It is in the publics best interests that access to this kind of content is restricted to the appropriate audience. That makes it a State or Federal issue. The fines for those who supply adult content to youngsters should be high.

The videogames industry has a more tricky time of it because of the "games are for kids right?" attitude that stilll exists in areas of authority.

Games should be subject to the same laws and age restrictions that films are governed by.

Oh and I totally believe that no industry is capable of regulating itself. There will always be a fundamental conflict of interest, especially in a capitalist society.

Here's the bottomline: Why should ANYONE else be held accountable for doing, or NOT DOING what a parent is SUPPOSED to be doing?

If a game, ANY GAME, has a content that doesn't fit the guideline set forth by a parent, then the parent should make sure that the game stays out of said children's life.

I do not want any of my games watered down because some parent someplace thinks it is supposed to be that way.

I really don't have a clue what is wrong with today's society. Everyone wants "Big Brother" to mind his own business BUT, they want someone else to make sure that their kids don't have access to things. Why can't the parent, the same parent who made the choice to HAVE these children, govern their own offspring?

Anywho, I always believed that we should never blame an implemented solution. We should ALWAYS blame the people who made that solution a necessity. If you have issues with a Big Brother law, find the assholes who caused it to be done.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

I agree with you Orph, the only problem being that as a parents need to take that responsibility it's impossible to regulate everything what your children is bombarded with from different media genres.

We don't have 24\7 supervision which leads to access to all types of things your child can see and do. Internet, games, televison and movies, Hell even their friends are the cause of alot of it. I sure don't want my grandkids looking at porn and violence on a pc or tv or in games, but how do you stop it. When their adults they do what they want.

There just isn't an easy solution to the access we have to media nowdays and we just have to do our best.

Regulation is needed simply because we all as adults should protect children from things they are not emotionally and mentally able to handle at an early age and try and limit the exposure of some stuff to minors, but as you said, I don't want my stuff tamed because some people don't have the sense to monitor (to the best of their ability) what their child sees. What's the solution? I don't know.
Responibility ultimately falls on all our shoudlers as adults.

---

Light is faster than sound:That is why some people appear bright until you hear them speak.

Your riches in life are family and friends, everything else is just a distraction.

As a society, the US decides what is acceptable and what is not.

Depictions of violent rape in movies, until recently, were considered unacceptable by the government, and the government represent the will of the people. As a society, these standards may change over time but for the mean time you're going to have to accept that it comes with living in a first world nation.

No one can stop a parent from buying an adult rated game and letting their 8 year old play it. So that's the role parents play.

It's the governments job to advise parents appropriately as to the content they are buying. Hence the certificate system.

I agree that an adult game should contain adult content and be rated as such. I see no problem with that at all. There are, however, limits as to what content is acceptable at all as set by the society.

For example, I don't want to play a game nor do I want one out there where the player can happily shoot children. Under any circumstances this would not be acceptable.

So while the wonderful American "Live Free Or Die!" attitude that spawns from states like Texas may sound appealing, you have to ask the question "What sort of a country do we want to be?".

It's an interesting topic because it gets right to the root of that fundamental split between big and small government which the US has always wrestled with.

Should government be telling the people what content they can and cannot view?

Quite frankly, YES they should for the reasons I've outlined above.

There are already games where kids die. AND yes I already said once before that I find it disturbing because the game would not have altered appreciably substituting the kids for something else.

However, I feel that just about everything is acceptable within the games for the simple fact that if you do not want to see/view/play/hear or feel something all you need do is don't play it.

The stupid bible thumpers have been trying for years to get regulations in the tv and movie arena and they too need to mind their own business because its entirely up to the parents to screen content for unacceptables per each individuals tastes and life styles.

Governments do not have to dictate for me, I can do it all by myself. HOWEVER as I already stated, if our government does stick its nose where I feel it doesn't belong I will ONLY blame the people who made such an act necessary. Its sad, but morons always seem to ruin things for others simply because they cannot accept responsibility for their own faults.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.

Good topic omega.

Regardless of how I feel about the decision, I would like to add my 2 cents to this comment:

Aazell said:
...and the government represent the will of the people.

Supposedly, but in practice I say it doesn't. It represents the popular vote, which doesn't always translate to the 'will of the people'.

The government can have special interests that are above, beyond, and even against what a parent might feel is right for their children. This is why I don't seek answers from the government regarding anything to do with parenthood. (let alone a host of other meddled topics).

I live in a part of the U.S. that could be described as the 'Bible Belt' (however I understand this waistline to have moved to several locations over the past couple of decades, so I don't know where the distinction originated). But nonetheless, this area fits the description just as well as any I've heard or visited.

Relevance, in my town of Ruston, There are still old laws that are actually enforced. One may be hearsay I'll admit, but for example the sell of alcohol on Sunday is still illegal here and I can't buy any anywhere that day in this county (parish if you're keeping tabs ;)). The other silly law that hasn't been repealed is the definition of a brothel (which are also illegal in this town). Which includes any homestead that houses 5 or more females.

Now I've been living on a university campus for the past 4 years, and I've been told that none of the sorority houses are ever occupied for this simple reason. in other words, no more than 3-4 girls ever live in them, if at all simply because it's still looked down upon here! That one is hearsay, and I admit I'd be surprised if it's actually true. But those houses are usually vacant until Rush.

Anyhow my point is that smart people can make stupid laws. Passionate good people too are subject to making stupid laws. And it's not worth trusting the government to make the best decisions. I wouldn't ignore them, simply because it's a group of people seriously thinking about these issues, but their choice doesn't automatically make it the best or preferred one, simple because it was voted on. Ever hear of 'group think'?

Now having said that:

Aazell said:
Oh and I totally believe that no industry is capable of regulating itself

-I quite agree.

---

Blog: www.playingarchitecture.net
LinkedIn: Eric Lancon
Twitter:@Riven202

Riven said:
Relevance, in my town of Ruston, There are still old laws that are actually enforced. One may be hearsay I'll admit, but for example the sell of alcohol on Sunday is still illegal here and I can't buy any anywhere that day in this county (parish if you're keeping tabs ;)).

Apparently Oklahoma has a silly law concerning the building selling the products. I cannot confirm this excepting for the fact that the liquor store in town is set up this way. Ok, apparently you cannot sell beer and hard liquor from the same room/location (at least this is my understanding) Picture this, you have one establishment. A wall separates them with a door leading between them. OK this is where it gets funky. You the patron cannot walk through the door to the other side. You must exit the store, and re-enter from the front entrance. Yes, the two parts have a front door too. The oddity is although you can see the two parts and the products, it is against the law to traverse the middle opening. Strange huh?

The other silly law that hasn't been repealed is the definition of a brothel (which are also illegal in this town). Which includes any homestead that houses 5 or more females.

Strange, I wonder how a law of this nature could even come about considering how many households have more than 5 female siblings/relatives. Big families were the order of the day for centuries. The only problem I ever heard of with large numbers of females all under one roof was that they eventually all menses at the same time. I can just imagine the PMS in the old days.

---

The best things in life, aren't things.