Utah officials react to Supreme Court violent game ruling

Return To Article
Add a comment
  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    June 28, 2011 1:20 p.m.

    Government tells us where to live (tax breaks for homeowners) and what to drive (insane gas prices). Government trains our children to think like cubicle drones (standardized testing). Government tells us who we can and can't marry (that's pretty obvious). Government tells us what to eat (no Happy Meal sales in San Francisco) and what to drink (alcohol control). Now they would like to tell us how to entertain ourselves.

  • FarnsworthPMacGillicuddy Layton, UT
    June 28, 2011 11:27 a.m.

    I am no fan of video games in general, however, having the government decide for me, what I can or cannot view/read/listen to, etc. is abhorrent.
    Self-censorship is always best. This law is akin to wanting to hide alcohol consumption from view by building walls in restaurants, etc. these types of "bans" only seek to make these items more curious and "nasty", rather than help. It's a pity most of our own state legislature can't seem to grasp the basic concept of self-reliance, self-governing and personal responsibility.
    Putting blinders on our children and pretending that monsters are not in society, which they are,(just check the Utah Attorney general's website for sex offenders), is ludicrous. Just as hiding ourselves from reality doesn't improve the quality of our lives, it only serves to create further problems, but it is something that is endemic to Utah culture, unfortunately. Whatever happened to "teach them correct principles and let them govern themselves"? Apparently, our legislators and certain folks here in Utah, have forgotten that little tidbit and very sage advice.

  • Kalindra Salt Lake City, Utah
    June 28, 2011 9:36 a.m.

    @ J-TX: The law would have done nothing to prevent kids from being exposed to games at their friends house - it did not criminalize kids playing the games, it merely criminalized game stores for selling the game to a minor.

    An older sibling or friend (or stranger for that matter) could have taken the money from the kid at the counter of the store, paid for the game, and handed the game to the kid and everything would have been perfectly legal and fine.

    This law would have done nothing but create a headache for game store owners (having to ID everyone who appears under 18) and create a false sense of security for those who don't want kids playing these games.

    Oh - it also would have driven business out of state, since the under-age kids could technically use their money to buy a prepaid credit card or gift card and purchased the game online and had it mailed to them - no ID check and no parental involvement.

    It was a worthless law.

    June 28, 2011 9:33 a.m.

    So Utah Legislators feel that parents and businesses should be able to control a potentially harmful product like violent video games? Yet somehow, alcohol isn't viewd in the same way? New bars/restaurants in Utah can't have a bar in public view, you can't buy wine at the grocery store, and fruity adult beverages are now only availlable in liquor stores? And what was their reasoning? .... to protect the children! Can someone please tell me how this is not hypocrytical? Maybe if a local religious doctrine forbid violent video games our legislature would have reacted differently. Either that, or there wasn't a way to justify additional tax revenue via a "State Video Game Store." Utah government needs to stop pretending to be in favor of constitutional liberties and the rights of parents -- this state is as controlling as it gets.

  • shakespeare's fool Pleasant Grove, UT
    June 28, 2011 9:11 a.m.

    Look, the difference between a conservative and a liberal is that a conservative wants to tell people how they should conduct their lives and a liberal wants to tell corporations how they should conduct themselves.

    Conservatives, please, have no heart ache over trying to resolve the conflict you are having over the gaming issue. It's a part of who you are. You want other people to do your will, feel no guilt about using gov't. as a tool to assist you.

  • gizmo33 St. George, Utah
    June 28, 2011 8:40 a.m.

    if parents dont want their kids playing certain video games then its the parents responsibility to make sure that doesnt happen it is the parents responsibility to raise their kids not the goverment. this ruling is just as it should be. well done Supreme Court ! if parents dont want their kids watching certain movies then its their responsibility to make sure they dont see those movies it is not the responsibility of the movie makers or the networks or the goverment...

  • J-TX Allen, TX
    June 28, 2011 8:36 a.m.

    I think they got it wrong, only because we are talking about sales to minors. As has been noted, we have plenty of laws that protect minors from harmful substances. Heck, in Texas, a minor can't even buy modeling glue.

    The parents aren't asking the government to parent for them, they are asking for help from the government. A parent can regulate what comes into their home, but not what their kids are exposed to at the homes of less vigilant parents. Yes, they should teach them correct principles, blah, blah, blah. I don't think a little help is a bad thing.

  • boris Provo, UT
    June 28, 2011 7:00 a.m.

    Conservatives feeling conflicted? This ruling supports a limit on federal powers but alsos free restrictions on censorship of material that many deem objectionable...of course it's only violence and not sex/nudity so most gun toting conservatives won't get too wound up.

  • Florien Wineriter Cottonwood Heights, UT
    June 28, 2011 6:39 a.m.

    Horray for our AG and the U S Supreme Court. It's encouraging any time our officials recognize that our constitution protects every one from birth to death.

  • KSM's Dad Ogden, UT
    June 28, 2011 6:27 a.m.

    I'm all for freedom and letting adults make their own decisions. I believe parents have the responsibility to teach their children. However, the government recognizes that minors don't always understand the consequence if their actions; they can't legally enter into contracts for example. This is why we restrict the sales of other harmful things to minors: alcohol, tobacco, pornography. Why not this?

  • Walt Nicholes Orem, UT
    June 27, 2011 6:47 p.m.

    All along the Main Stream Media have been telling me that there are 4 conservatives on the court, 4 liberals and a swing voter. More careful analysis indicates to me that there are 7 Libertarians on the court, and 1 conservative and 1 liberal.

    Who knew?

    In my opinion this has been one of the best Supreme Court sessions in history!

  • Ventor West Valley City, Utah
    June 27, 2011 5:39 p.m.

    If parents truly consider their home as theirs, Controlling what goes in and out of their home is a no-brainer. This court ruling was the right way to go. We need to put more responsibility on parents and less on the Government. Not the other way around.

  • Not So Fast Salt Lake City, UT
    June 27, 2011 4:48 p.m.

    I find it strange that supporting the constitution is called "moderate" by anybody. I thought conservatives wanted the government out of people's lives? I was prepared to disagree with the AG, but I believe his stance is correct. Retailers aren't legally responsible for what my kids buy or play, although I also find it great they respect the ratings system already in place.

  • DeltaFoxtrot West Valley, UT
    June 27, 2011 2:53 p.m.

    There are already ratings on video games. If parents don't like the way things are rated they should take it up with the ESRB, who assigns those ratings. This was never a job for the courts or lawmakers.

  • Dixie Dan Saint George, UT
    June 27, 2011 2:33 p.m.

    Carl Wimmer should immediately fly to the Washington and explain to the Supreme Court Justices why they are wrong. Since he is a Constitution Expert, he can quote it to the judges so they can correct their thinking. Isn't the state of Utah lucky to have the expertise of Mr. Wimmer and the Eagle Forum to interpret the Constitution for us?