U.S. Court of Appeals rules Schwarzenegger's game Law unconstitutional!

i've witnessed parents with their kids in videogame stores and they are clueless about games even with the rating. i've even seen employees tell the parents the games are violent and parents then turn to their kids....

personally i feel like the ratings on games isnt enough. i dont feel like kids should be able to buy M rated games. if parents buy the game for their kid there isnt much one can do thats on the parent, but kids shouldnt be able to walk in the store and buy a M game. which they are able to do now.

Wait the system is on our side? When did this happen?

Oh right... thanks Obama :P

Ruling to the lowest common denominator is absurd. Just because someone, somewhere, might do something, given the proper circumstances... that's no reason to constrain (literally) the vast majority.

how can that be unconstitutional but holding yet not allowing minors in to see rated R movies without an adult isn't? seems like a double standard.

censorship is never good. and it's never really to protect anything anyway.

Think what you wish.fool.

antiutopia, I'm sorry but that comparison does not hold up at all.

Games must be played on a system on a television. They cost at least $60 a piece. The only chance your child has of making $60 is if you give it to him. For the vast majority of children, buying a video game means getting your parents to drive you to a video game store, give you money to buy a video game, and almost always (unless the retailer messes up), showing an ID to prove they are over the age of 17. Then they have to get home, play the game in a system that they likely needed your help setting up, and to hide this fact they would have to turn the volume way down and be able to lock their door.

Simple solutions to this - put the game system in the living room. Monitor what your child spends nearly a hundred bucks on. Remove locks from their room. I worked in a game store, we were not allowed to sell M rated games to minors, someone was even fired for doing so. There are so many ways to keep this from happening that do not require government intervention and tax payer money.

I mean seriously, you're suggesting that a kid can secretly play a violent game in his room for several hours at a time and the parent doesn't know anything about it?

Also there is no legitimate evidence that violent games harm children. It's the opinion of a parent what is suitable for their children, and up to the parent to enforce it.

Also, remember that the average gamer is 30 years old. They make their money off of college students, not children.

I'm at the age where I don't have to care about laws like this anymore. But if I wasn't, it would sure be a relief that it was struck down.

Actually, even if it was still in effect it wouldn't stop me. There are still torrents and amazon and a dozen other sources.

Laws like this just make pansy baby boomers feel better about the fucking awful job they do parenting their children. They have nothing to do with public safety, it's just whiny, bored housewives and cowardly representatives afraid to not deviate from their constituents' will.

Also to note,if games are such are prob for the Gov,why was Schwarzenegger calling into the makers of COD4 office every month to see how the game is going? This a con,Governments & oligarchies DO NOT give children battle simulators for nothing.They are so children will what to join the meat grinder,and kill on site when they do.They had trouble with men pulling the trigger in WW II .This generation does it without flinching.
please do not ask for evidence for what i say,you look for it yourself.Google is your enemy & friend.

Besides corporate making money off the sale of minors, some of the parents have to realize they need to improve on mentoring and raising their children.
The govt should have no place and say in the matter. However, Some of us are relying on govt to " clean up and raise" our young on the simple fact of " not being there for our children."
We really can't blame the govt for this. We can still buy our children mature games over 18, but it is teaching the child and mentoring the child that the game violence isn't real ( meaning not to go out and react the part of grand theft auto ) and to not get it confused with reality.
Also some of the violent video games for youth can be used if enforced in a positive manner( mentoring the child right from wrong,and adding trust and maturity to most kids) as a " stress release" for the common child such as venting out frustration.
If you protect your child from everything and shelter them from all violence games, t.v until they are 18, Then there is a big possibility they may grow up becoming in some cases vioence them selves without personal video games or t.v due to not knowing " the difference between right and wrong"
I am sure the average person before they reached their 18th birthday had either experienced a R rated movie or listen to a 18 and older music CD - it doesn't mean they will become mass murderers. But for some of the parents who don't mentor their young the difference from fiction and non-fiction, will most likely suffer consequences with their young in later adolescent years.
Bottom line - kids will be kids and still play these games no matter what rules apply but....more and more parents need to just tell kids the difference between right and wrong and maturity so we won't have governors, presidents, congressman and lawmakers tell us how to raise our own youth.

It's up to the parents. Not all kids play Far Cry 2 or Gears of War and go "Hey, maybe I'll chop someone in half with a chainsaw!" This is nothing but shitty government regulation.

And, I find it incredibly stupid, that the people of California voted for an actor.

I agree that death is a necessary and unavoidable part of life; however, it has its place. There is nothing glorious or glamorous about killing. There are no do overs, re-do's, etc. in real life. Once what's done is done, it's over. End game.

Neh, I wouldn't say that this is a bill for lazy parents. This demonstrates a disconnect from the reality of parenting. Fact is, a parent's control is never complete (it'd be sick if it were), so it's reasonable to not want certain product sold over the counter to their children, who could otherwise buy it when they are absent, hide it in their room, and play it when the parents aren't around.

By this argument sales of porn to children shouldn't be illegal either -- what's the matter, can't parents control their kids? Pretty ridiculous.

While I am sure there are people who disagree with current movie ratings and exclusionary laws relating to them, there is no real debate on this subject. It's widely accepted. The overwhelming majority of people want it. Associating this practice with "censorship" is a bit off the mark as well. It is very hard for me to imagine how an R rated movie containing graphic sex and violence and is seen by millions of people is being "censored."

The question here is what is age appropriate. I don't want my ten year old seeing porn on film, in magazines, or in video games. In the first two cases it's widely accepted/recognized that as a parent I cannot do this on my own -- I need legislative support. It makes sense that I would need the same for controlling the content of video games.

Those selling video games only care about the sales of their product, not what's best for anyone -else's- children. They will corrupt and destroy to make any amount of money. Framing this as a free speech issue is to be hopelessly naive.

And yes, there are many ways for media of all forms to have negative effects on young viewers without actually inspiring death sprees.

ha,what a load of rubbish,this is excatley what they wanted,oohh don't throw me in the briar patch.ha.

well im glad IMPORTANT things like this are celebrated but things like the un-american patriot act are rooted deep into the society, and completely ignored.

Ha Ha Ha ha, Schwarzenegger is an idiot!

RT
http://www.anonymity.eu.tc

There are some lazy parents out there that want bills like this to pass.

The debate over whether violent video games are harmful to children is not relevant. For every one kid who may have played some Doom at some point in his life who goes on a killing spree there are 4 million rational gamers who've played Doom and go on with their daily lives like everyone else. But in the end, it's a moot point. Ultimately the responsibility lies on the parent to decide what is suitable for their children.

If parents feel these games are harmful to their children, they should keep their children away from them like any other dangerous object. Spend the 30 seconds necessary to learn the ESRB rating system and read the back of the box when your kid purchases a game, that's all it takes.

There's no need to waste government money (which this whole thing cost California tax payers almost $300,000) on controlling something that by definition is used at the home (you know, that place that the parent owns and regulates).

If you feel these are harmful to your kid, that's your business - not the states' and not my tax dollars. Maybe California should focus their government's attention on a crippling economic crisis and housing market catastrophe rather than something as obviously protected by free speech as this.

The ESRB is there for a reason, stop being lazy and use it or shut up.

cali FTW!

@Antiutopia

Very good points. The key thing here is parents deciding whether or not their children will be exposed to something, not the courts or the state. Therefore, wouldn't it make sense to lift bans on violent video game sales to minors?

Let the parent decide whether or not to allow the child to play the game/watch the movie etc. With a ban, there is no decision on the part of the parent.

Ah, dumb ruling. Communities get to determine their own standards, courts should not decide for them. The content of some video games are equivalent to the content of R rated movies (or worse) -- if we can legally exclude children under 18 from seeing certain movies, it makes sense that we should exclude them from playing certain video games.

The suggestion that there's no evidence that video games reinforce or encourage certain types of behavior is completely off the point. It's a red herring. Parents can decide what they want their non-adult children seeing or not seeing -- that's a consistently held parental right. It should apply to video games as well. If video games can be rated like movies, they should be restricted like movies.

What's next? Kids allowed to see R rated movies without adults?

if video games have more of a bearing on your child's actions than you do, then you should take a look in the mirror and say "i am a bad parent, tomorrow i will spend more time with my kid"

when american psycho came out how many kids did you see running around with chainsaws?

It's more of a win for the profit margins of the companies making the video games. I doubt they care much about freedom of choice beyond the $$$$$$$.

the end of youth as we know it has arrived . thank you kingkong for the update .

yes there will its call GTA Chinatown wars

it's a shame there will never be a GTA game available for the DS .

Yeah, kids will NEVER see, hear about or experience violence if we ban video games! It's not as if the world is at war and millions of people die everyday or anything; I'm sure glad the news isn't filled with stories of rape and murder! I mean WTF, do they honestly expect PARENTS to watch what their children are doing? Why the hell can't the government step in and tell us what's wrong and right for our families- we're too stupid, lazy and apathetic to do it ourselves!

feeble young minds. they should not be subjected to video game violence including the concept of death at such an early age. this blatant irreverance for life is disrespectful. although politicians may see it fit otherwise, children should not be taught that life is expendable. for those of you who fail to understand this, life is sacred it is precious and irreplaceable. if they learn this at a young age that murder and killing are not only acceptable but encouraged in life then how do you expect to make the world a better place?

Death is symbolic of change; change is inevitable much like day and night. Dawn begins each day anew with the death of the one passing before it. As with the path of the sun warming, awakening and rousing us into consciousness and the journey of the moon, cooling, calming and quelling us into our unconscious--there is still yet life in the natural process of death and it certainly makes you appreciate life more.

However, death is a necessary part of life; change that makes room for more life to take its place so as you too must also recede into the unconscious.

"Nothing that is; arises from itself." Everything that exists has some form of consciousness: birds, trees, bees, leaves and every thing that begins must come to an end. In science there is always a remainder of expended energy left over and that energy needs to go somewhere. Why then not back to where ever it is that it begins; a return to the far reach of its ends in the begining?

that doesnt look like arnold....

Isn't that what ESRB ratings are for?

Yeah, that's what I thought, also. But I do recognize the ring, though.

More to the point, good for Californians, another victory for free choice. The court system seems to be the only one still functioning in US...

Great news, but...

..that can't be Arnold in the picture. No way. I've seen wax models look more like the Terminator than that.