Quote:For nearly two decades, elected officials have tried to regulate which video games you can buy, rent and play. Every single time they’ve passed a law, the federal courts have struck it down as unconstitutional. But this may change this fall.

The Supreme Court of the United States has agreed to hear the State of California’s infamous ‘violent video game case,’ Schwarzenegger v. EMA. That means that this year, or early next, the Court is going to decide whether to agree with the lower federal courts or not. Agreeing would mean that they believe that video games are, and should continue to be, First Amendment protected speech; just like books, movies and music. The court disagreeing would mean that they think video games should be treated differently. This could lead to new bills and laws curtailing video game access in states across the country.

It is no exaggeration to state that their hearing represents the single most important moment for gamers, and the pivotal issue for gaming, in the sector’s history.

People in the US what do you make of this? The Entertainment Consumers Association aren't too fond of it, as there is a petition: http://action.theeca.com/p/dia/action/pu...n_KEY=1781

Are video games different to movies, books and music? Should the government decide what games you are allowed to play?

---

Well im the UK but id like to add to this thread if you dont mind Damian!

I really hope it is denied again, though games do offer a level of interactivity that movies,books and music dont, but people these other forms of media can have a huge effort on a person, possibly more so than a game, its all down to content. It isnt so much about the format of the media, but the content.

I thought there was already laws in place to stop the purchase of adult games? So what exactly is the point in this new law? What exactly will it do to the gaming industry in the US?
Am I correct in thinking it will become more like the Australia, with serious censorship or just plain banning, like manhunt 2,left4dead etc.

---

Wooooow the whole gaming underworld will be watching these events unfold..

If we lose.... We lose.... Not just America but the WHOLE world will eventually be changing the modern game world :x

---

Well, being a resident in the state of California, I'm nearly in the thick of it... I've been hearing about this law since the first time it was mentioned.
I don't mind limiting the sale of games, but some of the wording needs to be harshly changed. They need to change the word "Violent" to "M-Rated" and "Minors" to "People under the age of 17".
For those that do not know, the bill had been mentioned in the news to those in California like this

Quote:The sale of violent video games will be prohibited to minors

to put it more clearly, any video game, no matter what the rating (could practically be E for all it matters) would be illegal to sell to anybody under the age of 18 (note that the M rating is 17+)

---

I'm getting tired of the government trying to regulate games. It's a form of entertainment. You don't see other forms of entertainment being as restricted as what they are proposing. If the Supreme Court does disagree, it'll be dark day in our history.

---

GU Rules

PSN: Razgriz247 Steam: Razgriz247

What they're trying to prohibit is the sale of violent games to minors, probably the likes of GTA's and God of Wars, etc. Which is not a problem, retailers shouldn't be selling those kinds of games to minors in the first place. However, as Zero stated, they need to be more specific in what they want, "violent" could mean anything! Tom & Jerry is violent, Spiderman is violent, Prince of Persia is violent. The word is just too vague.

---

The specifics of California law passed isn't what's really being debated here. It's that any law made to ban the sale of video games to anyone is unconstitutional. If the Supreme Court rules that video games aren't protected by the First Admendent, it opens the door for local, state, or federal governments to place restrictions or bans on video games to everyone. So I hope they agree with the lower courts rulings on this one. While it's frusting to see retailers sell violent video games to kids, it should be mainly the parent's responsibility to prevent them from playing these games.

---

I vehemently believe that nothing of creative orientation should be banned. But I do believe that some materials need to be restricted from people who are not mature enough to absorb them (or more importantly, regurgitate them) in a responsible manner.

---

Outright bans on any type of media is wrong, IMO. Perhaps they should concentrate on properly enforcing the rules that are already in place, just like ensuring cinemas don't allow a 12 year old into a film rated M. Banning an adult from playing Saw: The Video Game but allowing them to see Saw I - VI would be completely hypocritical. Games are just interactive movies to me.

---

gilburtgtr Wrote:Outright bans on any type of media is wrong, IMO. Perhaps they should concentrate on properly enforcing the rules that are already in place, just like ensuring cinemas don't allow a 12 year old into a film rated M. Banning an adult from playing Saw: The Video Game but allowing them to see Saw I - VI would be completely hypocritical. Games are just interactive movies to me.

Nobody is trying to ban any adults from buying violent games, only minors.

I agree though, that the more suitable solution would be to actually enforce the already existing ESRB ratings and restrictions. Even then, parents should be held responsible too, they are the ones that control what their children will be exposed to and if they can't be bothered to do so, they have no right to even complain about the matter.

---