finbogg

From Gamespot newswire:
http://www.gamespot.com/pc/action/gr...s_6029440.html

A federal court strikes down a law that would prevent the sale of video games to minors.

The United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit has struck down a St. Louis County law that would prevent the sales of video games to minors. The ruling stated that video games are protected under the First Amendment as a form of free speech and therefore cannot be regulated by the government. The court found that the county's reasons for regulating sales, which included influencing minors with violent imagery, were largely unfounded and that the government has no ample reason for regulating the sales of games to minors on behalf of parents since parents were reportedly involved in purchasing decisions 83 percent of the time, according to the Federal Trade Commission.

"We do not mean to denigrate the government's role in supporting parents, or the right of parents to control their children's exposure to graphically violent materials," the ruling stated. "We merely hold that the government cannot silence protected speech by wrapping itself in the cloak of parental authority...To accept the county's broadly drawn interest as a compelling one would be to invite legislatures to undermine the First Amendment rights of minors willy-nilly under the guise of promoting parental authority."

The court added, "if the First Amendment is versatile enough to 'shield [the] painting of Jackson Pollack, music of Arnold Schoenberg, or jabberwocky verse of Lewis Carroll, we see no reason why the pictures, graphic design, concept art, sounds, music, stories, and narrative present in video games are not entitled to similar protection."

Nice to see this one get struck down. Personally I don't feel it's the government's job to dictate this kind of stuff. Parents need to take responsibility and be informed about what's an adult game and what's a kids game.

s}{ammer

good call by the courts. Being a parent I can tell you that I am all for parent rights but parents have to take responsibility and know what the kids are doing.

nickdawgy

yeah, no reason minors should be able to buy games like GTA 3.

FlashStash

Exactly, and the parents should be the one enforcing that rule.

FS

edstein

I think the gaming industry has done a good job of rating the games in a similar manner to movies or tv shows. I probably good go alone with age checks for MA titles like GTA 3 or BMX XXX. But, by no means do I want my government controlling what we can or can't buy based on someone's opinion of what is right and wrong.

Bluebomber

Saw that coming but glad to see it happen, the rating system is out there for a reason, if parents would stop ignoring it this wouldn't be an issue.

Draven

Good. Parents should know what their kids are buying (or what they buy for the kids.)

I don't have gaming aged kids (well, I don't have ANY kids) but I still cannot figure out what is so hard about walking into your kid's room and looking at the games they play. It's not like once a purchase is made the parents are SOL. Ebay anyone?

sniper308

It is amazing to me how many parents have no clue about this. I have access to list for sale items on an in company, intranet page and often list games there. I constantly get questions "like is this game (which is usually M rated and I include that info and usually a link to a description of the game) suitable for my 7 or 8 year old?"

I always respond that the game rating is such and such and you really need to make that decision for your own child based on that, etc.

edytwinky

Great call by the courts. There are way too many people out there with sticks up their ass that are so worried about the smallest things. Instead of focusing on video games, I'm sure there are more important things to complain about. But i'm just preaching to the choir now.

tanman

ummm......isn't porn protected under the first amendment. It is heavily regulated by the government.



I wouldn't care if they started checking people because I really don't think that kids should be playing some of the games.

Draven

No, not really. There is a whole obscenity thing that they use to get away with it.

I wrote a paper about it in my media law class about how hypocritical it is.

tanman

that's right....obscene material is not protected.

So what was your conclusion.

It might be hypocritical but if it keeps it out of the kids hands (porn that is) then maybe that is the only compromise.

Draven

It was a few years ago so I'm a little rusty.

Basically that the courts had ruled in other cases that subject matter wasn't something that could be regulated.

There was a case where a man was arrested for picketing near a school. There was a law in place that you couldn't picket by a school...unless it was a teacher's strike. The court ruled the law unconstitutional because the subject matter on the signs shouldn't dictate the right to picket. So either everyone can picket or no one can. Which I agreed with.

That same court ruled that pornography was somehow different. That it could be regulated. An adult movie theater was forced to shut down because the community didn't want it. It was a restricted access, 21-years or older theater, but the court ruled that the city was right to shut it down. Seemed hypocritical to me.

That's about all I can remember. I'd have to dig out the paper but I got points from my law professor for my arguments.