California's ban on selling violent video games to minors is unconstitutional, according to a US federal appeals court. Before you libertarians start jumping for joy, take a look at the decision. The court maintained Friday that there is one type of content that can be banned as obscenity — sexual content.
Justifying the ban, the state argued that video games cause psychological harm to minors and should be banned like sexual content. But the court said the research was inconclusive and that video games "are a form of expression protected by the First Amendment . . .The government may not restrict speech in order to control a minor's thoughts." The opinion also said that "the Supreme Court has carefully limited obscenity to sexual content."
So, the US Constitution protects violence, but not sex? I wonder what the forefathers would say about those priorities.
Aftershock
Haburi
Jimmy Choo
Okay then. Sex has somehow become a bigger concern than violence.
1I don't really think that video games change the way you think unless your parents are doing a really bad job raising you. If parents do a good job raising kids and are involved in their life they won't need video games to teach them right and wrong.
Ah, here it goes. Why one censorship and not the other? Why not enforce laws we already have and fine stores that sell the games to minors? Other than that, it's up to the parents to raise their own children and NOT BUY the games for their kids. And I know there are bad parents that will still buy them, but we can't let the government raise our kids and censor our things just because there are SOME bad parents.
2And right on Genesis.
3I am so confused by this, So we can require an ID to purchase paintballs, porn etc, but not severe violence?
4Whoever brought this case to the supreme court is a wick, twisted person. I mean, you want to sell you violent video game to a kid. Talk about selling your soul to the devil. I wonder if the libs will have outrage over this as much as those predatory lenders...
5How do these Jutsices justify that decision? To my knowledge there is nothing in the Constitution that singles out sexual content as the one thing that's acceptable to censor. I imagine they were basing this on precedent (too lazy to look it up just yet), but it does seem a little odd. Honestly, though, I'm not too concerned with violence or sex. Let their parents monitor their games, that's what the ratings are for.
6Justices*
7Right on mich!
8excuse me what? The whole thing just doesn't make sense to me. So sex is worst than violence? Are we still in Puritan times?
9oh my god. i just dont even know what to say hahahha. so wrong on so many levels.
10Considering that most of the kids buying those games (10-15ish) have probably already had sex and can access porn easily on the internet...well this ruling is just pointless. Don't censor an entire group in fear that their parents won't be parenting correctly.
11Sounds like we have a bunch of underground Libertarians in here!
12Mich I'm sure they get some twisted justification from the fact that there have been previous laws limiting sexual expression and what you can do in the privacy of your own home
. It's all pretty messed up to me. I would much rather have my child watch sexual content than
violence. While I wouldn't want my children to get unrealistic ideas and expectations from porn, I definitely believe violence is more damaging and less a part of our society.
Theoretically if the ban is on selling to minors, parents are still in control cause they can purchase the video games themselves, so while I'm not happy with the ban or the circumstances around it, I'm not too concerned either.
13Though moralistic type bans are a slippery slope in my opinion.
14Tipper Gore must be pissed today.
15haha that cracks me up
16Well I think this is a clear call for parents to parent. Video games and television in general do absolutely nothing beneficial for a growing mind. However, we do have the freedom to make our children’s brains mush that is the beauty of America.
17Obscenity has a lot of history in the constitution, this decision is based on precedent, as Mich said. I don't think the court necessarily thinks one is worse than the other, but there is a basis to regulate one and no basis to regulate the other - and obscenity regulations address sex/porn, so they can't be applied to violece as well.
18This is ridiculous!
19I dont get why they have to ban anything at all. Isn't it up to the parents to decided what their child will play at home or not?
Nuts. With the internet, sex and violence is readily available to those at any age. I agree with everyone who says it ultimately comes down to the parents monitoring what their kid is playing/watching/surfing.
20I never understood why blowing people's heads off is cool, but anything sexually suggestive is terrible.
21Post New Comment
Please share your opinion with our community, but make sure it is on topic and follows our Community Rules. We moderate comments and prohibit personal attacks, threats, spam, lewd images, or the promotion of your personal website.