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.

Anyone remember a while back, when someone was trying to keep mature titles from ending up in the hands of minors by law?

Well, you won't need to anymore.

http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/7.296902-Supreme-Court-Rules-in-Favor-of-Videogames

In short, The Supreme Court decided today that prohibiting "violent games" from being sold to minors is not constitutional.

A small excerpt:

"Reading Dante is unquestionably more cultured and intellectually edifying than playing Mortal Kombat. But these cultural and intellectual differences are not constitutional ones,"
wrote Justice Alito in a footnote to Scalia's opinion. "Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy, and restrictions upon them must survive strict scrutiny."

That law got struck down over and over and over. At least they can't appeal it again this time.

Oh cool I guess. I can stop wondering when the next one will pop up

What will G4 frighten its viewers with now?

So, you can have an age restriction on porn, but not on video games. That seems odd.

sebster wrote:So, you can have an age restriction on porn, but not on video games. That seems odd.

The US moral framework break sdown about like this.

Boobs = hellspawned abominations

Violence = good for the kids unless you're a hippie

sebster wrote:So, you can have an age restriction on porn, but not on video games. That seems odd.

There is an age restriction in video games. But just like the age restriction on porn, it gets ignored by most teenagers.

I still don't understand why boobies are much worse for a child to see than a murder.

coolyo294 wrote:There is an age restriction in video games. But just like the age restriction on porn, it gets ignored by most teenagers.

The age restriction is enforced by retailers, not by the government.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

feeder wrote:I still don't understand why boobies are much worse for a child to see than a murder.

The main reason is that the US is, culturally, more comfortable with violence than with sex.

The reason that is usually given is that exposure to sex at an early age leads to sexual deviancy, and an increased prevalence of rape. The former is anecdotal, and loaded with the idea that deviance is bad, the latter has been demonstrated to be false (in fact, there is evidence to suggest that the opposite is true).

dogma wrote:The US moral framework break sdown about like this.

Boobs = hellspawned abominations

Violence = good for the kids unless you're a hippie

Ignoring the 'aargh boobies!' thing you've all got going on over there in the US, how is it constitutional to restrict access to porn based on age, if it isn't constitutional to restrict access to video games based on age?

If GTA XVII is a text protected by the constitution, isn't Lust of the Mohicans similarly protected?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:The age restriction is enforced by retailers, not by the government.

Which, to me, is also just plain weird.

If, as a consumer, I have a constitutional right to access a text under the constitution, then I don't see how a retailer has a right to restrict me from accessing it based on, basically, age discrimination.

sebster wrote:
Ignoring the 'aargh boobies!' thing you've all got going on over there in the US, how is it constitutional to restrict access to porn based on age, if it isn't constitutional to restrict access to video games based on age?

If GTA XVII is a text protected by the constitution, isn't Lust of the Mohicans similarly protected?

You could make the argument, but there is a long tradition of restricting access to sexual media in the US. It isn't always logical, because ultimately all courts are influenced by politics, but its still there.

Additionally, there may be something regarding the age of majority. I'm not particularly familiar with this area of the law, though.

sebster wrote:
Which, to me, is also just plain weird.

If, as a consumer, I have a constitutional right to access a text under the constitution, then I don't see how a retailer has a right to restrict me from accessing it based on, basically, age discrimination.

Its basically a matter of property rights. The analogy being that if a private citizen can restrict a person from reading something, then a retailer can as well.

Additionally, age discrimination is enshrined in the Constitution via the Presidency, and Congress, so there is support for the concept in the founding document of the US.

dogma wrote:Its basically a matter of property rights. The analogy being that if a private citizen can restrict a person from reading something, then a retailer can as well.

At which point I'm left wondering why a bar might be in a lot of trouble for putting up a white's only sign, but a game store wouldn't be for putting up an 18+ sign.

Additionally, age discrimination is enshrined in the Constitution via the Presidency, and Congress, so there is support for the concept in the founding document of the US.

Ha! Now that's a clever argument I hadn't considered.

sebster wrote:
At which point I'm left wondering why a bar might be in a lot of trouble for putting up a white's only sign, but a game store wouldn't be for putting up an 18+ sign.

Cultural predilection. It is generally assumed that age is a good predictor of cognitive ability/maturity, while race is not accepted as such. Which isn't necessarily a bad argument, as certain milestones tend to be reached at certain times in accordance with culture.

That said, I would be interested to see how a policy of "No one over 30." held up in court.

dogma wrote:Cultural predilection. It is generally assumed that age is a good predictor of cognitive ability/maturity, while race is not accepted as such. Which isn't necessarily a bad argument, as certain milestones tend to be reached at certain times in accordance with culture.

That said, I would be interested to see how a policy of "No one over 30." held up in court.

Definitely. I think age is a good signifier of maturity (hardly ideal, but as good as we're ever going to get). It's just, I don't agree with the Supreme Court ruling, and find it very strange that it is considered that government cannot restrict access to material based on age, but that it's alright for a company to do so.

We have bars here that are 'no-one under 30'. I know Contiki has a 'no-one over 35 rule', and they operate in the US.

I have no idea if anyone has ever been turned back because of their age, let alone challenged it in a court of law.

dogma wrote:The US moral framework break sdown about like this.

Boobs = hellspawned abominations

Violence = good for the kids unless you're a hippie

QFT America...freedom unless its sexual or life threatening

Wow. This USSC is actually beginning to make me hopeful, between its recent 1st and 2nd amendment rulings. It has to be a trap. If I see anyone who appears to be a bipedal squid I am going to shoot first and not ask questions.

So, you can have an age restriction on porn, but not on video games. That seems odd.

That's because it IS odd. I came from ye olde deep south where that was truer than usual for the US, and -I- think it is <Censored> odd, backwards too.

-Shakes head-

It's true, the culture here in the USA has a far greater tolerance for violence than sex. I am happy to see this slowly begin to change, although perhaps there is an effect of moving from Texas to California additionally....But I never could understand why it's less bad to see a naked woman blasted, beaten or shot to the point you cannot tell if it's a woman or not, than it is to see one intact, nude, and presumably alive.

"Honey, Jimmy is playing a video game where there are a dozen skinned people crucified to the walls." "Well, at least he's not looking at porn and turning into a sex fiend!" I have actually heard comments similar to this when I was growing up, with my friends. I thought then the same thing I think now: What the <Censored>?

sebster wrote:
We have bars here that are 'no-one under 30'. I know Contiki has a 'no-one over 35 rule', and they operate in the US.

I have no idea if anyone has ever been turned back because of their age, let alone challenged it in a court of law.

When I was in undergrad there was this bar that openly refused foreign passports as legitimate ID. This was done in order to keep foreigners out, as I got in using my American passport, while my French, English, and Indian friends were refused.

I got kicked out 10 minutes later because I, drunkenly, tracked down the owner and called him racist "series of expletives".

Its one of my favorite memories.

Anyway, its common for people to get turned away for age, unofficially anyway. Excalibur in Chicago is infamous for this, though only for women.

dogma wrote:Anyway, its common for people to get turned away for age, unofficially anyway. Excalibur in Chicago is infamous for this, though only for women.

Bars turning away women? What the hell?

sebster wrote:
Bars turning away women? What the hell?

This is more like a techno castle. They regularly book acts like Armin, Deadmou5e, and The Crystal Method.

But its also a place for older men to fish for younger girls/boys from the VIP section.

Basically, if you're under 30 you get in no questions asked (ID included), if you're noticeably over that you get in with enough cash flashing.

dogma wrote:I got kicked out 10 minutes later because I, drunkenly, tracked down the owner and called him racist "series of expletives".

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

The reason this law got struck down was because the SCOTUS applied their standard set of precedents. There was really no new law in the case, simply the court applying the standard test for First Amendment cases. The distinction between sexual and other speech is a longstanding distinction in the law and is not likely to go away anytime soon.

Breyer's dissent was interesting because it essentially carved out a "for the children" exception to the First Amendment. Thomas' dissent argues that parents have a right to control the upbringing of their kids and this law was in support of it.

Neither was particularly compelling, and seemed to be those Justices writing seperately on issues they were interested in rather than advocating a solid legal theory. Not really unusual for Thomas, to be honest. He tends to be political: if the case is going to come down in a way he thinks is right on precedent, he'll write a dissent just for the hell of it.

This means that the government is not allowed to pass a law controlling distribution of video games by age, however it does not fetter parents, shopkeepers and ELSPA from denying 18+ titles to children.

biccat wrote:
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Which word? I used several, and none of them were the topic of the bit you quoted; which wasn't even a complete sentence.

Kilkrazy wrote:This means that the government is not allowed to pass a law controlling distribution of video games by age, however it does not fetter parents, shopkeepers and ELSPA from denying 18+ titles to children.

I honestly think thats how it should be anyways. I laugh when parents get outraged when they find their kids playing a horribly graphic video game. 9 times out of 10, it was the parents themselves that paid for the damn thing. Maybe pay attention to your kid a bit more then, yayayayaya Im on the phone just put it in there.

It was, as Biccat said, a pretty straighforward application of settled 1st Amendment law.

As for boobs, there has always been an "obscenity" exception, as that was considered under the common law to be speech with no value. As time has gone on, the actual material covered by "obscenity" has shrunk to, at this point, a pretty small handful of pretty graphic stuff (Beastiality, fisting, urine/feces play, etc).

As for selling goods to minors, the common law didn't even recongize contracts made with minors to be valid. I don't know what the UCC (uniform commercial code) now says on it, but there's never been a problem with regulating commercial activity based on age.

The court has been very leery of applying any real protections based on age, even more so than gender. There are just too many things that vary with age to really accomplish it.

KingCracker wrote:

Kilkrazy wrote:This means that the government is not allowed to pass a law controlling distribution of video games by age, however it does not fetter parents, shopkeepers and ELSPA from denying 18+ titles to children.

I honestly think thats how it should be anyways. I laugh when parents get outraged when they find their kids playing a horribly graphic video game. 9 times out of 10, it was the parents themselves that paid for the damn thing. Maybe pay attention to your kid a bit more then, yayayayaya Im on the phone just put it in there.

Careful KC, that sounds DANGEROUSLY close to 'personal responsibility'.

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Which word? I used several, and none of them were the topic of the bit you quoted; which wasn't even a complete sentence.

Racist.

Also, the quoted segment actually is a complete sentence. Let me know if you need some help recognizing sentence structure. I had assumed that this was basic knowledge for someone of your supposed education, but I could be wrong in that assumption. I'm here to help.

biccat wrote:

dogma wrote:

biccat wrote:
I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Which word? I used several, and none of them were the topic of the bit you quoted; which wasn't even a complete sentence.

Racist.

Also, the quoted segment actually is a complete sentence. Let me know if you need some help recognizing sentence structure. I had assumed that this was basic knowledge for someone of your supposed education, but I could be wrong in that assumption. I'm here to help.

Hey guys! You remember that time OT had unnecessary snark?

daedalus wrote:Hey guys! You remember that time OT had unnecessary snark?

yup. ahhh...annoying times.....

on topic i do think we need a rating system,and i dont trust all companies to do that.but i also do agree that the government needed to back off a little.

lord commissar klimino wrote:

daedalus wrote:Hey guys! You remember that time OT had unnecessary snark?

yup. ahhh...annoying times.....

on topic i do think we need a rating system,and i dont trust all companies to do that.but i also do agree that the government needed to back off a little.

You know there already is a rating system in place, right? The ESRB has been around since like 1994.

Hordini wrote:

lord commissar klimino wrote:

daedalus wrote:Hey guys! You remember that time OT had unnecessary snark?

yup. ahhh...annoying times.....

on topic i do think we need a rating system,and i dont trust all companies to do that.but i also do agree that the government needed to back off a little.

You know there already is a rating system in place, right? The ESRB has been around since like 1994.

And it's self regulated. The problem is the Tipper Gore types who don't think that's good enough.