The US Supreme Court Case on Violent Video Games.

Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you:

No adverts like this in the forums anymore.
Times and dates in your local timezone.
Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance.
Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely.
Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net.

If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

**Asherian Command**

Yeah this a little touche subject. But has anyone heard the ruling or do I have to wait until june?
Here it is from http://articles.sfgate.com/2010-11-02/bay-area/24809377_1_entertainment-software-association-supreme-court-movie-ratings

When California defends its ban on selling ultra-violent video games to minors before the Supreme Court today, it will ask the justices to do something no U.S. court has ever done: exempt a type of violent content from the First Amendment's protection of free expression.

The law, blocked by court orders since Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger signed it in 2005, would prohibit the sale to anyone younger than 18 of a video game that was so violent, it was "patently offensive" under prevailing community standards for minors. Prosecutors would also have to show that the game lacked serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value.
Like every other court that has considered such a law, the federal appeals court in San Francisco declared the California ban unconstitutional in February 2009. "The government may not restrict speech in order to control a minor's thoughts," the three-judge panel said.

But the Supreme Court may have signaled a willingness to chart a new course with its decision to review the California case. The court has established separate constitutional standards for minors in recent rulings on the death penalty and on free speech in school, and the state is urging a similar classification for interactive onscreen mayhem.
Kids and free speech

"The First Amendment rights of minors are not coextensive with the rights of adults," the state's lawyer, Deputy Attorney General Zackery Morazzini, said in written arguments.

Youngsters lack "the capacity to make a reasoned choice" when it comes to video games, he said, and California simply wants to reinforce parents' authority to protect their children.

The video game industry, with more than $10 billion in annual nationwide sales, also claims to represent parents' interests.

"There is no reason to think parents need California's 'assistance' in deciding which expression is worthwhile for their children," attorney Paul Smith said in a court filing. Smith is a lawyer for the Entertainment Software Association, which has sued to overturn the law.
Just like movie ratings

He said families are protected by the industry's voluntary rating system for retailers, which is based on age-group categories like those at movie theaters. The state and its allies call the system porous, but Smith described it as "remarkably effective."

At least six other states and several cities have passed laws similar to California's. The courts have struck down all of them.

In April, the Supreme Court ruled that videos showing cruelty to animals were entitled to constitutional protection. The 8-1 ruling struck down a federal law that made it a crime to show any such images but left open the possibility that a narrower law, targeted at particularly sadistic content, might be valid.

California argues that its law is limited to the most brutal, least socially valuable commercial products, those that reward a player for killing, maiming, raping or dismembering human figures.

Morazzini cited a court description of "Postal II," in which the player goes on a rampage of slaughtering police and unarmed civilians. "Girls attacked with a shovel will beg for mercy; the player can be merciless and decapitate them," he wrote.
Classic themes

Smith painted a more benign picture of an "increasingly sophisticated medium." More than two-thirds of U.S. households include at least one video game player, whose average age is 34, he said.

"Like the best of literature," Smith wrote, video games "often involve classic themes that have captivated audiences for centuries, such as good-versus-evil, triumph over adversity, struggle against corrupt powers, and quest for adventure."

California's law, he argued, is "the latest in a long history of overreactions to new expressive media," such as comic books, movies and rock music - all of which were once portrayed as dangers to children's morals and welfare.

The court challenge is supported by moviemakers and booksellers, who say they fear a precedent for government censorship, and civil liberties organizations.
Link to violence?

California is backed by the American Academy of Pediatrics, which says studies increasingly show that minors who play violent video games are more likely to think and act aggressively.

Other researchers have disputed that conclusion, and the appeals court said it found no convincing evidence that the games cause psychological damage.

That issue is intertwined with one of the state's main arguments: that violence in video games should be judged by the same obscenity standard as sex.

The Supreme Court ruled in 1968 that a state could prohibit sales of sexually explicit material to minors that would be legal if sold to adults. If the court looked at video violence through the same lens, California would have an easier time justifying its law - for example, with studies that suggest a link between the games and aggressive behavior.

"Violent material can be just as harmful to the well-being of minors as sexually explicit material," Morazzini said.

Not so, said Smith. "Unlike explicit sexuality, violence is not and never has been a taboo subject for children," he said.

A ruling in Schwarzenegger vs. Entertainment Merchants Association, 08-1448, is due by the end of June.

Attack of the Show also Commented
http://g4tv.com/attackoftheshow/theloop/72634/Supreme-Court-vs-The-Video-Game-Industry.html

And the Daily Show
http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-november-4-2010/you-re-welcome---violent-video-games
The once really confused me...

Anyone else think that this is against our first amendment? If this law does pass it will ruin the Video Game Industry.

**Ma55ter_fett**

I am not sure, but I heard that a decision won't come for another couple months.

Also, I hear tell that other states are watching this in lieu of drafting their own legislation.

**Asherian Command**

I really think it is unconstitutional. It breaks the first amendment. And it is freedom of choice. The Californians Politicians are just trying to get into another office, the entire thing that they are saying we are trying to care for the Children is complete BS.
If they cared they wouldn't be doing this! It is outright outrageous! I am 16 and If video games get banned it will piss off at least 2.5 million people.

**The Dreadnote**

Wait, so all this is doing is making it illegal to sell very violent games to under 18s? Is this not already the case?

**Kilkrazy**

I don't approve of selling violent games to children.

It is pretty conclusively proven that children do not have the same cognitive and moral development as adults.

Consequently they are not always able to distinguish between fiction and truth, and may not be able to process moral concepts to the same degree.

In this case I can accept the idea that children can be adversely affected by violent games.

I thought the poll referred to adults, though. I don't believe that adults are affected by games unless they are weak-minded.

**Asherian Command**

they are going to push the age to 20. And if a child purchases one it will cost them at $10,000 Fine....
Not only that but then the Video Game Industry has censor itself.
It is also referring to Adults as well. That is the study. And people just keep shooting stuff off with absolutely no support in this court case.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Well this thread didn't do very well...

**Chowderhead**

The Dreadnote wrote:Wait, so all this is doing is making it illegal to sell very violent games to under 18s? Is this not already the case?

It is illegal. But if you get your parent to buy it, then pay them back, BOOM! You just got Condemned 2: Bloodshot.

Honestly, this is like saying I can't see a car crash as it is "Too Graphic". First amendment will kill this fast.

**GalacticDefender**

Kilkrazy wrote:I don't approve of selling violent games to children.

It is pretty conclusively proven that children do not have the same cognitive and moral development as adults.

Consequently they are not always able to distinguish between fiction and truth, and may not be able to process moral concepts to the same degree.

In this case I can accept the idea that children can be adversely affected by violent games.

I thought the poll referred to adults, though. I don't believe that adults are affected by games unless they are weak-minded.

What age children are you talking about here? Any kid over 9 (even under in most cases) knows that Movies/video games aren't real and you can't go blast people with shotguns and rocket launchers on their spare time.

**Monster Rain**

All I've heard is that they want to limit the sale of really violent games to those who are over 18.

I can't really see myself giving a damn.

**Howard A Treesong**

Monster Rain wrote:All I've heard is that they want to limit the sale of really violent games to those who are over 18.

But that has long been the case, just like videos. But the games industry already has a ratings system in place so I can't see the fuss myself, games like Grand Theft Auto have long had an 18+ on them so it's not as if a child could just walk into the shop and ask for it.

**The Dreadnote**

What's the status of ESRB ratings with regard to the law? By which I mean, is it actually illegal to sell an M-rated game (for example) to a 15-year old?

**CrashUSAR**

Wait wait wait...so instead of being 17 to buy an ultra-violent video game, you might have to wait until you're 18? And they'll actually put a law in place to enforce that "mature" rating? There might be fewer 10 year olds screaming into my ear on XBL? There's a problem with this?

**Monster Rain**

Howard A Treesong wrote:
Monster Rain wrote:All I've heard is that they want to limit the sale of really violent games to those who are over 18.

But that has long been the case, just like videos. But the games industry already has a ratings system in place so I can't see the fuss myself, games like Grand Theft Auto have long had an 18+ on them so it's not as if a child could just walk into the shop and ask for it.

I wasn't sure how strongly the law was behind the ESRB, that's all.

This just seems like a gimmick to get a bunch of people to run out and buy video games before "the man" takes them away.

Kind of like the rush to buy guns and ammo when Obama was elected.

**Kilkrazy**

GalacticDefender wrote:
Kilkrazy wrote:I don't approve of selling violent games to children.

It is pretty conclusively proven that children do not have the same cognitive and moral development as adults.

Consequently they are not always able to distinguish between fiction and truth, and may not be able to process moral concepts to the same degree.

In this case I can accept the idea that children can be adversely affected by violent games.

I thought the poll referred to adults, though. I don't believe that adults are affected by games unless they are weak-minded.

What age children are you talking about here? Any kid over 9 (even under in most cases) knows that Movies/video games aren't real and you can't go blast people with shotguns and rocket launchers on their spare time.

I was talking not just about cognitive development (and remember that many children still believe in Santa Claus at the age of 10) but also about moral or ethical development. There are very few societies which hold children to be fully morally developed at the age of 10.

Many countries including the USA have either a voluntary or legally based system which broadly divides the age categories as 3+, 7+, 12+, 16+ and 18+, give or take a year.

These life stages correspond with broadly held views about other aspects of development and the taking on of adult roles and responsibility, such as the ability to form contracts, have sex, vote, and be criminally responsible.

Is the playing of video games completely different to these other types of responsibility?

**Asherian Command**

CrashUSAR wrote:Wait wait wait...so instead of being 17 to buy an ultra-violent video game, you might have to wait until you're 18? And they'll actually put a law in place to enforce that "mature" rating? There might be fewer 10 year olds screaming into my ear on XBL? There's a problem with this?

Yeah but it means that money for video games are going to go up as supply and demand will drop.

**LordofHats**

The Dreadnote wrote:What's the status of ESRB ratings with regard to the law? By which I mean, is it actually illegal to sell an M-rated game (for example) to a 15-year old?

In most states yes. California wants to expand this common law (that I will add, most major games retailers were following even before the laws went into place or were even being discussed in most states) to include any game with a violence rating as I understand it.

One, the idea that if a kid plays a game where he shoots a rocket at a car will then go and commit violent acts in real life is absurd. The only thing studies have ever managed to prove is that violent games can cause temporary increases in aggressive behavior, but this is true of any activity that cause an increase in adrenaline ie sports or even tag. I thought most people understood this by now and that the whole "blame the violence of our youth on video games" craze had stopped seeing as violence among youths has been dropping for more than two decades in the US and that I don't know, maybe it's the parents job to raise their kid?

Two, the law isn't going to change anything. Kids will do what they do now when they're trying to get an M game and just ask their parents to buy it for them.

Is the playing of video games completely different to these other types of responsibility?

Nope and there are already systems in place that are followed. California is beating the dead horse with a pointless law kids already have a way around. If you don't want kids to do something, telling them not to do in a law usually doesn't have the desired effect.

**Asherian Command**

LordofHats wrote:
The Dreadnote wrote:What's the status of ESRB ratings with regard to the law? By which I mean, is it actually illegal to sell an M-rated game (for example) to a 15-year old?

In most states yes. California wants to expand this common law (that I will add, most major games retailers were following even before the laws went into place or were even being discussed in most states) to include any game with a violence rating as I understand it.

One, the idea that if a kid plays a game where he shoots a rocket at a car will then go and commit violent acts in real life is absurd. The only thing studies have ever managed to prove is that violent games can cause temporary increases in aggressive behavior, but this is true of any activity that cause an increase in adrenaline ie sports or even tag. I thought most people understood this by now and that the whole "blame the violence of our youth on video games" craze had stopped seeing as violence among youths has been dropping for more than two decades in the US and that I don't know, maybe it's the parents job to raise their kid?

Two, the law isn't going to change anything. Kids will do what they do now when they're trying to get an M game and just ask their parents to buy it for them.

Is the playing of video games completely different to these other types of responsibility?

Nope and there are already systems in place that are followed. California is beating the dead horse with a pointless law kids already have a way around.

If I remember correctly it is called a pseudo science by all my teachers. The study of Violent Video Games on a child or a 18 year old.

**LordofHats**

Asherian Command wrote:If I remember correctly it is called a pseudo science by all my teachers. The study of Violent Video Games on a child or a 18 year old.

I wouldn't call it pseudo-science per se. The media in the early 90's (when this fiasco about video games began) grossly exaggerated the results of some studies crying "video games make kids do evil things!" Add in the Columbine incident where the media again exploded the role Doom played in the actions of the shooters and various other events, and people keep getting the idea that video games corrupt the youth, even though many studies have tried and failed to prove a correlation between video games and real world violence.

EDIT: If anything the opposite has been proven. Video games keep kids from going outside and decrease their chances of committing any crimes or potentially hazardous activity

**Asherian Command**

LordofHats wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:If I remember correctly it is called a pseudo science by all my teachers. The study of Violent Video Games on a child or a 18 year old.

I wouldn't call it pseudo-science per se. The media in the early 90's (when this fiasco about video games began) grossly exaggerated the results of some studies crying "video games make kids do evil things!" Add in the Columbine incident where the media again exploded the role Doom played in the actions of the shooters and various other events, and people keep getting the idea that video games corrupt the youth, even though many studies have tried and failed to prove a correlation between video games and real world violence.

EDIT: If anything the opposite has been proven. Video games keep kids from going outside and decrease their chances of committing any crimes or potentially hazardous activity

I completely agree with this statement and also gives childern an idea of how bad the world can be. After playing re4 i have been actually staying away from big groups of people.

**Monster Rain**

Asherian Command wrote:
CrashUSAR wrote:Wait wait wait...so instead of being 17 to buy an ultra-violent video game, you might have to wait until you're 18? And they'll actually put a law in place to enforce that "mature" rating? There might be fewer 10 year olds screaming into my ear on XBL? There's a problem with this?

Yeah but it means that money for video games are going to go up as supply and demand will drop.

I seriously doubt it.

Honestly, if the law was being enforced and they kicked all of those shrieking bastard children off of XBL I'd consider this one of the greatest moments in American History, and would actually cause me to buy more games.

**Asherian Command**

Monster Rain wrote:
Asherian Command wrote:
CrashUSAR wrote:Wait wait wait...so instead of being 17 to buy an ultra-violent video game, you might have to wait until you're 18? And they'll actually put a law in place to enforce that "mature" rating? There might be fewer 10 year olds screaming into my ear on XBL? There's a problem with this?

Yeah but it means that money for video games are going to go up as supply and demand will drop.

I seriously doubt it.

Honestly, if the law was being enforced and they kicked all of those shrieking bastard children off of XBL I'd consider this one of the greatest moments in American History, and would actually cause me to buy more games.

Well thats true and this law might not go into effect until i am 18 anyway.

**VikingScott**

Less screaming team-killing fethtards on XBL means better times for me. And I thought you wern't allowed to buy for example an 18 game unless you were 18? These ratings exist for a reason.

If a parent doesn't want to abide by these and they're child is influenced (due to whatever reason by it weak mind or special needs) to be violent the blame is easliy on the parents and not the video games maker guys.

Automatically Appended Next Post:
Also poll needs to be edited to include better options such as: Only in the easliy influenced.

**Asherian Command**

Yeah. But Its just is this first time ever Video games appealed in the Supreme Court.

**LordofHats**

Monster Rain wrote:Honestly, if the law was being enforced and they kicked all of those shrieking bastard children off of XBL I'd consider this one of the greatest moments in American History, and would actually cause me to buy more games.

Screaming kids find ways to obtain Halo even though almost every state has adopted a law barring the sale of M games to people under 17 (and those that don't have a law still get the effect because most retailers have adopted internal policies that do the same thing).

I hate to say, this law will not help us my friend

.

**Slarg232**

This law will be pointless and it won't do anything, for two reasons:

1) How many underage kids are able to get ahold of Alcohol? The law doesn't stop them, it won't stop Video Game sales.

2) How many parents give a damn about their kids? Not very many, they will still buy Halo 23: The Same Thing Again because it will get their kids off their backs.

Also, as a little side note: I have been playing ultra violent games since I was 8. As in, Mortal Kombat type violent games. I have yet to hit someone who didn't hit me first.

**Kanluwen**

Slarg232 wrote:This law will be pointless and it won't do anything, for two reasons:

1) How many underage kids are able to get ahold of Alcohol? The law doesn't stop them, it won't stop Video Game sales.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume you're not completely uneducated.
1)Any shop that sells liquor to underage kids gets hit with a hefty fine and can lose their liquor license, which in turn causes them to lose alot more money and furthermore they'll be constantly watched to see if they do this again.
2)People buying liquor for underage kids can get hit with jailtime and fines, along with depending on the circumstances, being forced to register as a sex offender.

2) How many parents give a damn about their kids? Not very many, they will still buy Halo 23: The Same Thing Again because it will get their kids off their backs.

Also, as a little side note: I have been playing ultra violent games since I was 8. As in, Mortal Kombat type violent games. I have yet to hit someone who didn't hit me first.

Irrelevant. This isn't a kneejerk reaction to something like Columbine. This is looking at whether or not steps should be made to regulate the sales of violent video games, and to be able to make parents/shops be held accountable for selling them to underage kids.

Think of it like if you bought a minor pornography. You'd be charged for a crime with that, if you bought it knowingly for a minor, probably charged with alot more if you did it on more than one occasion.

**Slarg232**

Kanluwen wrote:
Slarg232 wrote:This law will be pointless and it won't do anything, for two reasons:

1) How many underage kids are able to get ahold of Alcohol? The law doesn't stop them, it won't stop Video Game sales.

I'm going to give you the benefit of the doubt here, and assume you're not completely uneducated.
1)Any shop that sells liquor to underage kids gets hit with a hefty fine and can lose their liquor license, which in turn causes them to lose alot more money and furthermore they'll be constantly watched to see if they do this again.
2)People buying liquor for underage kids can get hit with jailtime and fines, along with depending on the circumstances, being forced to register as a sex offender.

2) How many parents give a damn about their kids? Not very many, they will still buy Halo 23: The Same Thing Again because it will get their kids off their backs.

Also, as a little side note: I have been playing ultra violent games since I was 8. As in, Mortal Kombat type violent games. I have yet to hit someone who didn't hit me first.

Irrelevant. This isn't a kneejerk reaction to something like Columbine. This is looking at whether or not steps should be made to regulate the sales of violent video games, and to be able to make parents/shops be held accountable for selling them to underage kids.

Think of it like if you bought a minor pornography. You'd be charged for a crime with that, if you bought it knowingly for a minor, probably charged with alot more if you did it on more than one occasion.

I am also going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have any sort of life experiance

1)In small towns cops don't care, no one will bust anyone for ANYTHING out in these parts because everyone knows everyone. The same exact thing is going to happen with video games.

2) see 1)

It is too bloody hell relevent. When we start letting the government tell us what we can and can't handle, where will we draw the line? Will we ban movies from being rented to houses with children? How about Romance novels with sex in them? We can't (and I highly doubt we will) regulate games because then we let them get their foot in the door of all of the entertainment industry, and then the censors come in. As a up coming book writer, this concerns me greatly.

I will take it into my own judgement as to what my kids can or cannot play, watch, drink, read or whatever, thank you very much.

Edit: Don't Assume. It makes an Ass out of U and Me.

**Kanluwen**

Slarg232 wrote:
I am also going to give you the benefit of the doubt and assume you have any sort of life experiance

1)In small towns cops don't care, no one will bust anyone for ANYTHING out in these parts because everyone knows everyone. The same exact thing is going to happen with video games.

Oh, so we're using Mayberry as an example now? Kay. I grew up spending all summer/spring in a small town(Candor, NY). Anytime I did even the smallest thing to get out of line...that "everyone knows everyone's business" mentality stepped up. You don't need cops arresting parents in that case. The cops are going to tell the kid's parents or word gets around to the point where people become pariahs because they "didn't raise their kid right".

2) see 1)

It is too bloody hell relevent. When we start letting the government tell us what we can and can't handle, where will we draw the line? Will we ban movies from being rented to houses with children? How about Romance novels with sex in them? We can't (and I highly doubt we will) regulate games because then we let them get their foot in the door of all of the entertainment industry, and then the censors come in. As a up coming book writer, this concerns me greatly.

...You've got to be a tea partier.
This isn't about banning games.
This isn't about banning violence of any sort or censorship of any bloody kind.

Do you know what this is about?
This is about should video games be able to be protected under the 1st Amendment as Free Speech/Artistic works. Games like Postal or Grand Theft Auto probably won't make the cut, seeing as how they're mostly violence for violence's sake.

Games like Mass Effect, Assassin's Creed, etc. The games with large overarching storylines punctuated with spats of violence? They'll probably be protected.

I will take it into my own judgement as to what my kids can or cannot play, watch, drink, read or whatever, thank you very much.

Okay, and at the same time this isn't taking that away from you. This is about how these items should be displayed(the California law proposal was to have M rated games put on the top shelf, requiring an adult employee/parent to reach it for the child) and should they be protected as artistic works.

Edit: Don't Assume. It makes an Ass out of U and Me.

Try reading a news story before kneejerk reactions next time.

**LordofHats**

Kanluwen wrote:
1)Any shop that sells liquor to underage kids gets hit with a hefty fine and can lose their liquor license, which in turn causes them to lose alot more money and furthermore they'll be constantly watched to see if they do this again.

Slarg is right. Kids find ways to get alcohol. Granted, I think that with this law we're thinking more little kids playing with violent games than teenagers who want to get drunk.

2)People buying liquor for underage kids can get hit with jailtime and fines, along with depending on the circumstances, being forced to register as a sex offender.

Yet is still happens. Go find a college campus. Trust me. Underage kids find ways to get alcohol. Saying they can't because there are laws against it is like saying they don't get their hands on weed, which we all know isn't true (I actually think kids can get alcohol a lot easier than they can get weed).

Irrelevant. This isn't a kneejerk reaction to something like Columbine. This is looking at whether or not steps should be made to regulate the sales of violent video games, and to be able to make parents/shops be held accountable for selling them to underage kids.

There are already laws. Basically the exact same law they're making now they're just expanding it. Somehow the law against selling M games to minors hasn't stopped screaming kids who want their mom to get them chocolate milk from getting their hands on Halo or Gears of War. EDIT: And a ban on the sale of M games is far more reasonable and objective than what California is currently trying to do.

Think of it like if you bought a minor pornography. You'd be charged for a crime with that, if you bought it knowingly for a minor, probably charged with alot more if you did it on more than one occasion.

So? Making a law doesn't stop people from doing things. It especially doesn't stop them when they are silly laws to ban silly things for silly reasons that are so easy to get around its funny.

the California law proposal was to have M rated games put on the top shelf, requiring an adult employee/parent to reach it for the child

Are you sure you're reading the news? That law was like, five years ago. EDIT: The law we're currently talking about is a law about a ban on violent games to minors. It's actually a even sillier law when you look at it's language. Almost no video game actually meets its descriptions of what is to banned that isn't already for all practical purposes banned. The real stupidity of their law is how they expect to even enforce it at all and if there even are games currently on retail shelves that met its requirements.

**Kanluwen**

LordofHats wrote:
Kanluwen wrote:
1)Any shop that sells liquor to underage kids gets hit with a hefty fine and can lose their liquor license, which in turn causes them to lose alot more money and furthermore they'll be constantly watched to see if they do this again.

Slarg is right. Kids find ways to get alcohol. Granted, I think that with this law we're thinking more little kids playing with violent games than teenagers who want to get drunk.

2)People buying liquor for underage kids can get hit with jailtime and fines, along with depending on the circumstances, being forced to register as a sex offender.

Yet is still happens. Go find a college campus. Trust me. Underage kids find ways to get alcohol. Saying they can't because there are laws against it is like saying they don't get their hands on weed, which we all know isn't true (I actually think kids can get alcohol a lot easier than they can get weed).

I'm not saying that they can't. I'm saying there's laws in place that if someone gets caught providing it for them--that person AND the minors both are going to get slammed, hard.

And college campuses are a totally different beast. When you have people living together, it gets harder to monitor what is/isn't being done. Colleges, however, also have systems in place for underage drinking.

Irrelevant. This isn't a kneejerk reaction to something like Columbine. This is looking at whether or not steps should be made to regulate the sales of violent video games, and to be able to make parents/shops be held accountable for selling them to underage kids.

There are already laws. Basically the exact same law they're making now they're just expanding it. Somehow the law against selling M games to minors hasn't stopped screaming kids who want their mom to get them chocolate milk from getting their hands on Halo or Gears of War. EDIT: And a ban on the sale of M games is far more reasonable and objective than what California is currently trying to do.

Actually, the whole issue is that the ESRB isn't a government agency and thus can't enforce the rating system. That's partly what California is trying to bring to the foreground.

Think of it like if you bought a minor pornography. You'd be charged for a crime with that, if you bought it knowingly for a minor, probably charged with alot more if you did it on more than one occasion.

So? Making a law doesn't stop people from doing things. It especially doesn't stop them when they are silly laws to ban silly things for silly reasons that are so easy to get around its funny.

Again, where the hell are you getting this "banning" crap from? Manchu says: No more of what I can only assume was good-natured name calling, please, as some users will take it poorly.
The proposal won't "ban" anything. It's to regulate the purchases and to hold stores/parents more accountable for what they expose their children to.

the California law proposal was to have M rated games put on the top shelf, requiring an adult employee/parent to reach it for the child

Are you sure you're reading the news? That law was like, five years ago. EDIT: The law we're currently talking about is a law about a ban on violent games to minors. It's actually a even sillier law when you look at it's language. Almost no video game actually meets its descriptions of what is to banned that isn't already for all practical purposes banned. The real stupidity of their law is how they expect to even enforce it at all and if there even are games currently on retail shelves that met its requirements.

I'm well aware of the law, actually. And the fact is that the justices who were presiding over it were the ones who brought up the earlier California law proposal of the "top shelf law".
Oh, and let's not forget that the core of the issue isn't "should video games have violence?" but "should video games be given the same protections under the 1st amendment as film/literature".