@ worf: If it is not the Government restricting it, than it is not a violation
of Freedom of Speech and the Constitution.Employers can fire
employees for violating the terms of employment - including if the employee says
something that goes against company policy.Freedom of Speech does
not mean freedom of repurcussions - it is a protection from the Government, not
carte blanche to say whatever you want wherever you want whenever you want.This case shot down government restrictions - that doesn't mean you have
to buy the game for your kids - you still have the personal right to not subject
yourself to that speech - much the way an employer or an organization can
protect themselves from speech with which they disagree.
Kalindra | 7:10 p.m. June 28, 2011 Salt Lake City, UtahGovernment restrictions or not, people are fired or fined for making certain
remarks. Many of the remarks were not meant to be insultive. There are unwritten
laws. Either way, it's punishment and not freedom of speech. Be careful of what
@ worf: What laws are on the books to prevent people from saying negative
things about non-whites or gays?Oh, that's right - there aren't
any.Freedom of speech does not mean freedom from social consequences
- it means freedom from government restrictions.This law would have
been a government restriction.There are social consequences for
making violent video games (or there can be) - namely people speaking out
against the industry and not supporting it by buying the games - the exact same
social consequences that come into play when people make negative comments about
Freedom of speech? Look what happens if you say anything close to negative on
non-whites or gays. Even talking out on a rival sports team can get you in
trouble. Violent videos are ok.
three11stu is right. There is nothing that will stop businesses from regulating
who buys their games. Because this law was repealed everything will stay the
SAME. Stores will still prevent kids under the age of 17 from purchasing rated
M video games. AND on top of that parents have the ability to put parental
controls on their gaming consoles. Every single gaming console available has
parental control software. Stop trying to make the goverment do the work for
Never in my days have I seen so many "constitutional scholars"
pontificating about an issue wherein they know very little about. First as has been stated, and ignored, the Video Game industry always limits
the sales of M games to those above the age of 17.Second there is no
law limiting the afforementioned business practice seeing that they are private
entities and the government can interfere only cases of gross negligence on the
part of the retailers. Seeing that there has been no negligence on the part of
the retailers there is no reason for the gov't to step in.Third all
of those who state that Video Games are causing the downfall of our society you
sound like those who said that about movies, musicals, plays (this goes back to
Shakespeare), tv, radio, art, and novels. Come on guys video games are fun and
there is no evidence to even suggest well balanced individuals will become
murderes even if they are children. So I ask you detractors what is
your point. If it is self regulated, safe, and not the downfall of our society
what are you opposing? Something new and therefore, according to you, dangerous?
Statutorially required seat belts? Statutorially required motorcycle helmets?
Mandatory child restraints? Statutorially denying folks a ride in the back of
pickup trucks? Surely those adorned with the black robes can understand the
implication of aiding and abetting the deterioration of our children's values,
attitudes,and mores. The things we are exposed to naturally become a part of
us..... a process called assimilation (a sociology term). It is not without the
rapid advancement of age that I look forward to going the way of the world
regarding the debasing influences which we bow in the mistaken conception of
superior intellect. HiO Silver
So violence is ok for children, but a topless woman is not. Am I the only
person who thinks Europe has it right and we don't?
More of the right wing trying to force their morals and ethics and create an
even larger government.
@ Floyd Johnson: "Previously (according to Thomas), the First Ammendement
did not guarantee the freedom of speech to minors."I would like
you (or Thomas or anyone else who cares to try) to provide the title of one
article or book or writing or any other source by one of the Founding Fathers in
which they state the guarantees of the Bill of Rights do not extend to children,
youth, minors, or individuals under a certain age.There isn't one.
At no point did the Founding Fathers ever say that the Constitution does not
apply to children. To claim that children do not have and deserve the
protections of the Constitution and the First Amendment is a gross error and a
very scary idea to promote.
John Pack Lambert and FLoyd Johnson: Neither of you are understanding what
took place today. You are right in saying that there was a law prohibiting R
rated movies. I never said there was a law. It is PROTECTED under free speech.
Same as video games. The supreme court DID NOT state that video games cannot be
REGULATED. They stated that it is unconstitutional to make the selling to
minors illegal, just like movies. The exact same laws that apply to movies also
apply to video games. It is free speech. Video games are not any different
than movies. To say that this law will do away with the ESRB and any
regulation of the industry is completely false. What they were trying to do in
California was to hold video games to a different level than the other forms of
speech, and this ruling stated that they are the same.
three11stu - There is no law regarding admittance to R rated movies, simply
industry policies. Therefore, theaters can use their discretion in admittance.
In contrast to movies, there has now been a Supreme Court ruling stating that
the First Amendment guarantees the right of minors to purchase violent video
games. If the State cannot prohibit the sale to minors, it is reasonable to
assume that a store policy prohibiting a sale would also be be in violation of
this ruling.Bubble - Previously (according to Thomas), the First
Ammendement did not guarantee the freedom of speech to minors. This ruling
expands the original intent of the First Ammendment and essentially alters the
Constitution. This legal precedent has the same effect as a federal law passed
by Congress. Basically, the Supreme Court has written a law.The
position of Thomas is correct. "The practices and beliefs of the founding
generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally
understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to
access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians...."
This ruling extends new rights to minors. The Court is wrong.
Three11stu, If the regulation of the purchase of this material by
children under a certain age is a violation of the constitution than how can
anyone do it? There is a failing in your logic. Even when sale of things to
minors is illegal people still do it, where it is legal they will do it
significantly more. Some stores may hold to certain content age restrictions
but if they do not have the law behind them, there will be violations and they
will be common and widespread.
@Christy: The defense to that is easy. They DO NOT allow the selling of those
materials to 13 year old boys. A 13 year old cannot buy a video game that is
rated M for Mature, just like that same 13 year old boy cannot go and see an R
rated movie with those things. This is not about protecting corporations,
as the video game companies do not sell these games to children anyways. This
is about protecting freedom of speech, which, like it or not, video games fall
under. Just like movies and books and magazines and music, video games are a
form of speech, and should be protected just like every other form of speech.
Scalia's argument of citing violent fairy tales is flawed. It confuses visual
and non-visual imagery. More disturbingly it confuses imagery you recieve and
imagery you act out.Violently acting out activities in a game is
proactively participating in it. This is clearly different from vieing violence
as a non-participant.
I like Thomas' dissent the most. Breyer also has some good points. However
even Roberts and Alito being willing to consider upholding a narrower law is not
encoraging. That would only give a sure 4 to a narrower law. There is still
hope for a narrower law, and I hope that Yee is able to get such a law crafted.
This is a sad day for decency.
Dissenting Justice Breyer asked, "What sense does it make to
forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman,
while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in
which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and
kills her?" So, what's your defense of that?
"The industry has taken great measures to protect children and prevent
access to this content."=================Really?
Why did Justice Scalia bother to note that books given to children have "no
shortage of gore.""Grimm's Fairy Tales ... are grim
indeed. As her just deserts for trying to poison Snow White, the wicked queen is
made to dance in red hot slippers "till she fell dead on the
floor,"Oh, yes, Justice Scalia, scary fairy tales in a book,
are comparable to virtually murdering someone in 3D, and having virtual sex with
a prostitute. Give me a break.This ruling is about protecting
corporations, over children. Yes, parents need to parent. And there are
parents who will buy these games and let their children play them. That is
their CHOICE. I'm not one of those parents. And I know there are kids out
there we need to worry about. This ruling takes no rights away from any adult,
just children. Kind of the way we don't allow them to buy porn or cigarettes.
We would not have this problem if we followed the Ten Commandments: Exodus
20:4-6Make no likeness of anything in heaven, earth or under the
waterneither bow down to it.I remember saying, If I do not
make it, how will I bow down to it. Others make it. We bow down to it when we
must maintain it with our money and efforts or we honor it as "art."
Picture and images draw us into many expensive endeavors and useless
and mind damaging practices, sports and competitions; and they waste time that
could be used enjoying people and helping our family and community. Pride and
vanity traps: college and military for cap and gown and military uniform
pictures. Big weddings for pictures. School pictures yearly, Vacations for
picture memories, pride and vanity of clothing, make-up and hair-styles. God is
against all these and more. Read Isaiah 2 & 3 to see what God plans to
destroy or what He would rather we not be involved in.
From the article: ""The practices and beliefs of the founding
generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally
understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to
access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians,"
Thomas wrote."Well, that kind of depends. Children were
considered the property of their parents (particularly their father) so
technically I guess you would have to go through their parents/father for
certain things.However, at the same time, there really was no
distinction between children and adults - it was not illegal to hire a child
into a sweat shop and make them work 20 hours a day, it was not illegal to beat
children, and there was no such thing as "child" porn or prostitution
because even though children were involved in those things, there were no laws
against them on the basis of children being involved.Thomas' opinion
clearly ignores the facts of the time. If you really want to go by when the
Constitution was written, you would have to allow children the same access as
adults - a much looser standard than what we have today.
@ Floyd Johnson: Legislating is the process of making a law. The Supreme Court
did not make a law. They merely stated that a law that was made by California
is in conflict with the US Constitution, which is the supreme law of the land,
and, as such, cannot be enforced.And you are right - this would not
have made it through Congress, because Congress is not charged with the duty of
hearing and deciding cases.The rest of your post is off topic as
there was no law written or created and, therefor, none of the things you say
this law prevents are prevented.
Floyd: This law in no way will prevent store policies that prohibit sales to
minors. For example, it is not illegal for a child to go to an R rated movie.
There isn't even a law that says movies must be rated. However, there are
guidlines in place to prevent children from accessing this material without
parental consent. It is the exact same for video games. This ruling
stated that you cannot make the sell of video games illegal to minors. However,
the guidlines still remain, which stated that minors cannot Mature video games
until they are 17.
I don't think people are understanding the ruling at all.It does NOT
allow children to go into a store and buy a game any more than it allows a child
to buy a ticket to a R rated movies. It simply lets the theater and the game
store monitor sales without making the federal government enforce the law with
fines.It definitely, absolutely puts the onus on parents. I does not
give children free reign to buy anything they please. Stores are still free to
not sell adult material to minors. Which as pointed out, they already prohibit.
Clarence Thomas was correct. The question before the court was not: "should
children purchase violent video games?" It was: "Does the First
Ammendment guarantee the right of a child to purchase video games?" It was
not the intent of the authors of the constitution to extend this privelege;
therefore, the issue should have remained in the control of the States. The
Supreme Court is legislating, there is no way this would have passed through
congress.three11stu - This law will likely prevent store policies
that prohibit sales to minors.DeltaFoxtrot - This law sidesteps
parental control by allowing children to purchase games directly. Children no
longer need parents to buy games for them, the "parents shouldn't buy
them" argument is no longer relevant.
Carman you silly silly man. You do realize that all stores I go to ID me when I
decide to buy a video game rated M. I remember at one point two 16 yr old kids
tried to buy Halo 3. They were denied by Gamestop. Not only that but a parent
had to come in and buy it for them. Dude have you read the original stories they
are terribly violent. Cinderella's sisters eyes get pecked out for crying out
loud. Dude research video games before shooting out an opinion you might be
@carmanThe movie standards are purely voluntary. There are no
federal rules and regulations governing them. Enforcement is also voluntary for
each theater. The video game industry as a whole does a far better
job of self regulation and enforcement than almost any other industry. The
major retailers will not sell M rated games to minors. That being said, if a
child wants to buy a game, and has the resources, they will find a way. More
often than not, it is the parent or legal guardian buying it for them.The reason the decency standards are lowering is because it is selling. If
people wouldn't buy Grand Theft Auto, they will not make anymore games,
guaranteed. I am a very serious video gamer, but when I see an M rating on a
box, it makes me think twice, and with very little exception, I will not buy the
game. I monitor what my children play. Bottom line, it starts with
good parenting. Banning the sale starts a slippery slope. If we start with
games that are violent, it becomes easier to ban "controversial" and
Sad. The standards of decency continue to fall to newer lows. And I don't
understand how we can bar a child from seeing a violent R rated film in a movie
theater based on societal standards, but allow that same child to buy just as
violent of content in the form of a game and say it is ok. Talk about a double
standard. As for the Justice's comparison to Snow White or Hansel and Gretel to
the graphic violence in full color in some of these games is just intellectual
stupidity run wild. Again, sad.
Banning freedom is what you see in Communist countries. Venesuela banned violent
video games a while back. I sure dont want government to babysit us and controll
everything we do. It is up to the parents to teach their children right from
wrong. Government always teaches us wrong. Look at history.
The ban is the same for games as for movies. Police don't patrol and fine
theaters if it lets kids into 'R' or 'NC-17' movies and they shouldn't do it for
games. Both theaters and game outlets know that parents will like them better if
they restrict sales based on ratings.In a study it was found that
stores already restrict sales most of the time based on ratings.Making the stores or chains responsible and imposing fines is not the right
place to look. I agree with most here that parents need to know and take a role
in what games are sold and played. I am not sure they don't already in many
I completely agree with the Supreme Court on this one. Society is working to
protect children from Violent and Innapropriate content in regards to video
games. Every game has a rating, whether it be E(everyone) T(teen) or M(mature).
Pretty much any store that you go to in American, whether it be Gamestop,
Wal-mart, or Target, or any other store requires that in order to purchase a
game that is rated M, you must be 17 years old. There are also parental
controls on every console that you can allow which games will be played on the
console. You could not allow any M rated game to be played on the console. The
industry has taken great measures to protect children and prevent access to this
content. There is no need for the government to be involved involved in this
process.I am 27 years old, and I still get asked for my ID at gamestop
when I buy games that are rated Mature.
The issue here is whether children (minors) can or cannot be prevented from
purchasing/renting a violent game.To argue that it is the parent's
sole responsibility to regulate this is reckless. Would we use the same logic
for firearms, cigarettes, pornography, etc.?We allow adults to
purchase these things but we prohibit minors from doing so. If it is just an
issue of making the parents to always be solely responsible, why does that not
apply to these products (and others) as well? If a kid buys a firearm,
cigarettes, or pornography could we not just say "it's the parents job to
take care of this"?If we want children to retain access to
these games via their parents oversight, then upholding the law would be the
right move. Then, a parent could purchase/rent the game for the child if the
parent so chooses.This decision is a slippery slope. If we cannot
forbid a child purchasing hyper violent material because it "restrict[s]
the ideas to which children may be exposed" then why can we forbid them
from purchasing pornography? The same argument would seem to apply.
So the parents cant take away the game their 13 year old bought so we need to
have the Cali Government do the job for them? Im I missing something here. What
ever happend to the responsability of the parents to control what their kid
does. If a 13 year old buys a game, and the parents dont like it, why cant the
parents just forbid the kid from playing it. Why do we need to spend money on
what parents should be doing. More big government trying to do the parents job.
Where are the parents?
Parents: If you don't want your child playing the game then DON'T BUY IT.There's an epidemic in this country... over the past 10 years parents
have apparently forgotten how to say NO to their children.
@ DarrelThose 3 consoles also allow you to block movies based on ratings
as well. But either way if your kid wants to play these games they will get
them, regardless of what laws are in place.
@Russ NI'm a little bit split on the whole thing. On one hand, the
regulation of legal information/art of any nature is a dangerous path to start
down. The government rarely stops when it gets started. On the other
hand, after reading the dissenting justice's opinion, I was slightly swayed to
rationalizing the ban.However, this is not a tool that parents
should need to decide what's best for their kids. How are these children
obtaining funds/transportation to buy these games without their parents'
knowledge? How are these kids playing these games without their parents'
knowledge? Pay attention what your children are doing and it frequently isn't an
issue. The same goes for movies, internet, and other offensive material.
@unaffiliated_personAll 3 major video game consoles (Xbox 360,
Playstation 3 and Wii) have a rating system on them that parents can very easily
set up. If a video game passes a certain threshold it will not allow the game
to be played. Again, it goes back to parenting.
Sorry. Mistyped.Should have said, "I agree with the dissent
noted from Justice Thomas."
Bad decision. This is not about limiting government regulation. It's about
increasing parental regulation. By striking down this law the Court has
effectively taken the power away from parents to make decisions for their
children and given power to children to decide what's best for themselves.
A lot of game systems already have parental control systems in place. The
problem is that most parents don't bother to set them up. Parents are lazy and
want to blame someone else for their problems and rely on the government to make
sure their children "do the right thing".
I with the dissent noted from Justice Thomas.
Can't modern TV's block content at certain ratings? Why not extend the TV rating
system to games and use parental controls on the TV. Using laws to ban them will
only spawn a black market and divert law enforcement resources.
What happened to 'personal responsibility'... by parents?