What is Digg?78 Comments
- fernB, on 10/10/2007, -3/+27The Irony is that some of those games have the GOVERNOR on them, so Mr Scharzengger is trying to ban game he is actually in.
- ScrewedThePooch, on 10/10/2007, -7/+31Finally a judge who recognizes the constitutional rights of minors. Kids have rights too, and you can't just restrict everything from them, because you want to govern other peoples' children.
- blaze03, on 10/10/2007, -1/+10Wrong. There are no laws prohibiting children from seeing R or NC-17 movies, those are -guidelines- set by the MPAA (not a government agency), and are not legally enforceable. That is the whole point of this story. No laws exist for prohibiting children from accessing other types of media, making it a double standard if they do it for video games.
If you don't care about your first amendment rights, then you're fine to disagree with the judge. ESRB guidelines for games already exist to protect kids, and they should remain just that - guidelines. The less government involvement in what you are and are not allowed to see, the better. - groo68, on 10/10/2007, -3/+10it's ironic.
- theone3, on 10/10/2007, -1/+8http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irony#Situational_irony
- newJxE, on 10/10/2007, -0/+6Judge's Decision:
http://www.gamepolitics.com/images/legal/CA-final.pdf - Lane, on 10/10/2007, -2/+7Its a complete waste of time to restrict games in any way. parents dont check in on games to find out theres sex and heads being blown off nor do they care to take one minute to find out why its rated mature. all they care is that little timmy is up in his room playing where he is safe and quite.
- blaze03, on 10/10/2007, -1/+6Right, because the constitution isn't exactly serious business or anything.
Is your last name Bush by any chance? - MrDarkSim, on 10/10/2007, -2/+6I can see why he would want to ban Total Recall. That game was a steaming pile of *****.
- moonhead, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Why's the kid always named Timmy? I don't think i know anyone who's named Timmy. Mind you i don't know anyone..................
- thayle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+5It's already store policy for kids under the age of 17 to not be allowed to by M rated games. This law would make it so people would have to be 18+ turning all violent video games into adult only type games. Meaning places would refuse to carry it just like they refuse to carry AO games. I mean come on the first thing people would think if they saw an 18+ sticker would be its some sort of porn or something that no kid should be allowed to play not, "Hey that has an 18+ sticker it must mean that parents should look at it and decide if there kids should have it."
- lowerlogic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4Man I hate legal talk. Seriously, 17 pages?!? Those federal judges must be really, really bored. I think judges need to come back to reality.
I would have just blocked the law by writing "Blocked! Reason: 1st Amendment FTW!" cuz that basically sums up like 8 of the 17 pages, and the other 9 pages could be replaced with 2 or 3 footnotes. - 1town, on 10/10/2007, -0/+4What the ***** leads to violence and high-school shootings?
No *****, playing videogames are healthier than smoking. Smoking kills millions every year, wanna take a stab at how many video-game addicts have killed people? - KyleMistry, on 10/10/2007, -1/+4Tell that to my pet turtle.
Oh Shellsy, how your life was cut so short... - Kolar, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5Personally? No, but what I think is appropriate for a 12 year old to be viewing can differ from that of their PARENTS. In this case leave it up to the stores, they will likely get complaints and lost business due to upset parents (believe me, there's enough of them) and adjust their policies accordingly. The state should be more concerned with policy matters and not get into idealogical debates and micromanage social issues.
- lowerlogic, on 10/10/2007, -0/+3First off, video games don't lead to high-shootings, at least not for the millions of gamers worldwide playing games today. If violent games led to high school shootings, nearly every one living in a city would be dead because almost every one knows someone who has played a violent video game at some point in their life or lives near someone who has played a violent video game. Even if only 1/1,000,000 of gamers mystically mutated into murderers after being exposed to violent games, news reportings of school shootings would be happening multiple times a day.
Second, video games are a way to release anger and stress without hurting anyone, just like martial arts or wrestling or boxing. Does everyone who practices martial arts or wrestling or boxing suddenly leave their dojo at the end of their training period for the day and start round house kicking everyone they see on the street to death? Answer: No. Like boxing, a health half hour of video games remove tension, and anger that would have otherwise built up to something dangerous.
Finally, I bet at least some teenagers have become video gamers who, without video games, would have been more interesting in real things like street racing, fighting, drugs, or other things that are actually dangerous for themselves or others. - fragsta, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5I think the idea of prohibiting the sale of violent games to minors is to leave the decision up to their parents. Isn't that a good thing? I was only ever allowed to play games that my parents let me play, many of them were violent, but they had the choice of whether to let me or not. Surely a law to ensure that parents are not undermined by their own children is a good thing?
- blaze03, on 10/10/2007, -2/+5"I am actually for the law."
So you're saying you're for ignoring the constitution? What if the government arbitrarily decided to ban 70 year olds from watching R rated movies? The first amendment exists for a reason. - thayle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3Ok, so here is the truth behind the thing. Basically it's saying that the government can't decide, which is how its always been. It's always been store policy to not sell M-rated games to children under the age of 17. There has never been an actual law against selling the games.
- szembek, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Dupe from yesterday.
- NinjaBoy, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You don't know anyone names timmy because he is in his room and cant come out. The real world is too dangerous for people named timmy.
- bigtomrodney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2You see there's the difference. Ratings set by the IFC and the BBFC are actually legally enforced. It's nothing to do with freedom of speech as everyone can see this content once they are old enough, or if their parents decide they should be able to see it.
- ripple123, on 10/10/2007, -2/+4All video games did to me was give me the desire to bash things with my head in the hope mushrooms would come out of them. And stomp on turtles.
- thayle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Blocking this law does not change anything! It has always been store policy to not sell M-rated games to children under the age of 17. There has never been any law against selling these games to minors! This law would have just changed all M-rated games to legally you have to be 18+ games. To parents this would make the game seem like an AO game, and thus game stores wouldn't carry it anymore because many of these stores refuse to carry AO games.
- blaze03, on 10/10/2007, -1/+3What's good and bad for you should not always be decided by the government. What this whole thing comes down to is that enforcing this law would be a clear violation of the First Amendment of the Constitution. That supercedes any opinion you may have about how other people should do their parenting.
- thayle, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2I completely agree with you, and I just want to say I'm glad there is someone else that understands this.
- inactive, on 10/10/2007, -0/+2Ohhh a nightmare, how awful!
And we wonder why kids are growing up to be ***** sissys. - Kinjiru, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Movie ratiings are advised by the MPAA they are not law. You can take in your kid for an R rated movie anytime you want but it is the Parents decision not the government.
- Perezoso06, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1I don't think it will matter... Think about it. What does it matter if minors can't buy violent video games? They can ask their parents or someone of age to get them. So, what it really comes down to is how the kids' parents teach them. If the parents don't care what their kids play, the law won't have any effect.
- Derrekito, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Thank you theone3, I hope this shuts Dundasbro's ***** mouth already. I blame the failed school systems. :(
- thirdman, on 10/10/2007, -3/+4Thats more alanic than ironic
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=alanic - thayle, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2Honestly, try to understand that nothing is changing it has always been store policy regulating M-rated games, there has never been any law. This law would just turn all M-rated games into AO games because of the 18+ sticker.
- jjesusfreak01, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Have their parents be parents and evaluate the game before buying it for them. Any 15 year old should be able to get their parents to buy the game...so its not a problem. What is the problem are the 8 year old kids whose parents will buy them copies of manhunt.
- felman87, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2So....no harm done
- iniqui7y, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1good, i like that law, i can play halo or the unreal tournament on xbox live without having little kids yelling "your momma"or "pwnd" every 3 seconds ...
sucks for the mature 15+ that cant buy the game - enginbeering, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1Awesome spelling.
- Derrekito, on 10/10/2007, -1/+2The reason this is a big issue is that such hasty decision is based entirely on speculation, and simply comes down to "morals" that are being imposed upon the population. Much of the literature claims that they cannot find a link to violent video games and violent BEHAVIOR in kids/teens. In fact violence in schools has been on a steady decline since the 90's. However, this does not fit the scope of reasoning with the conservatives, so scientists and educators go largely ignored, as often seems to be the case. So ***** off with your suggestion that such an issue is largely only supported by childish teens. Until there is a TANGIBLE reason to restrict distribution of this material to kids, let them play. I'm sick and tired of policy being largely influence by religious ideology and hasty generalization. It seems natural to believe that grotesquely violent video games would have a grotesquely negative effect on impressionable teens; however there simply is not any papers (that I have read) that claim that to be the case while maintaining any merit.
- jedikv, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1My brother is addicted to 'shrooms
- thayle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Again! There has never been a law! It has always been store policy to not sell M-rated games. This law would have just turned all M-rated games into AO games because it would slap an 18+ sticker on them. And what do you mean there should be some form of rating system? There is one, and it is done by the ESRB which stores follow. This law would have only hurt the industry because anyone who see's an 18+ sticker on something isn't going to buy it.
- bigtomrodney, on 10/10/2007, -0/+1So 17 year olds are responsible enough, parents should learn to read the box of the game. I think that's the point of the law. That the parents should decide, not a kid. I'm sure a parent wouldn't have a problem with their 17 year old having these games, but not with 12 year olds. The whole point is to make the parents take the responsibility.
- thayle, on 10/10/2007, -2/+3Nothing is changing, it will still be a store policy to not sell M-rated games to children under the age of 17. There has never been a law about not selling games, it has always been store policy. This would have also made these M rated games basically turn into AO, which many stores refuse to carry.
- ThomasOkken, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I think this is just a case of Schwarzenegger's ego. I mean, think about it: if violent games and movies *don't* make kids violent, that means that all his movies have had a lot less impact than maybe he likes to believe.
Or maybe I'm just paranoid. Darn, I wish I hadn't left my tinfoil hat at home. :-) - Ellipson, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0Um, did you RTFA? Or even the headline? The judge BLOCKED the law. He says the government CAN'T regulate sales of video games.
Get your sensationalist crap out of here. - Perezoso06, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I don't really see why the Govinator wants to appeal besides the obvious popularity issue. He is seen as a pretty violent man by many; fans of the terminator movies. Keep up the good work judges!
- Perezoso06, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1I some what agree, video games are not the only contributing factor in violence in children. In fact, the news, other television episodes and movies have a greater impact on their psyche. This has been proven by numerous scientific studies.
- BTime, on 10/10/2007, -1/+1Nope, some are actually 13 yrs. old.
- iniqui7y, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0what are you 16? and can't go buy the games, cause i doubt you would REALLY care if you were 18+ ... go have fun playing mario teaches ABCs and leave the big games for the big boys
- iniqui7y, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0notice all the ones complaining are the 14 year olds who mommy won't buy them a "adult" game .. they may not get their gay halo 3 and yell "pwnd" in the mics .. haha
- RoboB0b, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I think you missed Kugo's point entirely.
- damnation, on 10/10/2007, -0/+0I hope it gets passed so I don't have to deal with screaming 12 year olds online..... I'll only have to deal with screaming 25 year olds.
-
Show 51 - 77 of 77 discussions
Check out the new & improved 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is