Supreme Court to decide hte future of Video Games

[Clickme]

You DO realize that they'd have to sell 17 new games or up to 51 older games for every single offense JUST to make up for the fine right? That's a full $1,000 in LOST profit each time.

[FullMetalX]

Actually, the California fine IS $1000. So you're right.

[Clickme]

Lol yeah. You likely read it and had it in the back of your mind ^_^

But you're right. I was only taking the prices into account.

So at that cost, is there really any way to say that it's not jsut simpler to not carry the games? It's the simplest solution, but the worst case scenario.

[DanTails]

Originally Posted by Clickme

Lol yeah. You likely read it and had it in the back of your mind ^_^

But you're right. I was only taking the prices into account.

So at that cost, is there really any way to say that it's not jsut simpler to not carry the games? It's the simplest solution, but the worst case scenario.

I'm not entirely sure myself yet. The employee who lets one go would probably be fired pretty quickly. It's obviously a heavy point of emphasis for them.

But, we can't say what it would do, only predict. I'd predict that they'd still sell them, just boss their clerks more. (Or say, hide the new discs behind the counter, to make sure that they have to do some sorta extra activity already)

But really, anything said here is pointless speculation. =/ Heck, we're not even sure how much violence would get this rating.

(But if it kills the FPS genre, I'm all for it passing. <_<)

[Lock]

In my opinion, this law needs to be struck down...It's just plan uncostituitonal(I know I misspelled that). From what I've read, the Supreme Court is divided on this one.

[Clickme]

Well it was a struck down in 12 consecutive lower courts on First Amendment grounds, sighting that the regulation of content was something all other forms of media are protected from. IF this law passes, then what's next? Certain R-rated movies? If it's to violent for a game, why can't it be too violent for the 35ft screen with surround sound? We don't want violence like this in our home! They does that mean some DVDs will be illegal to sell too? Once you start regulating media it's a slippery slope of people crying out "Well you regulated THIS, why can't you regulate THAT! I want my kids safe from this and I want the government to do it so I don't HAVE to!"

Lazy fucking parents...

[DanTails]

Originally Posted by Clickme

If it's to violent for a game, why can't it be too violent for the 35ft screen with surround sound?

Because video games have a more direct influence then the other medias, by making the player a direct cause of the violence, instead of a casual observer of them.

And well, Parents should be responsible, but there's only so much they can do. What, stop your kid from going to a friend's house because they have GTA? Are you supposed to find out everything your child is doing and all their friends are doing? If you let the kid get, say, a paper route or some sort of small job, or let them save up money to get something, and they go with a friend's parents to buy said M rated game to play while you're not at home or something.

The parent's going to have to rule with an iron fist in order to keep their kids clean, earning the ire of friends and family in the process, forcing their kid to live a sheltered life that might not be good for them.

Obviously, Parents need to pay attention and actually work at it. But they probably need some sort of help from the schools and the law, they can't do literally everything.

[FullMetalX]

Sorry, but I don't buy any of that. First off, the whole "Interactive Medium" argument is weak. It's the same type of argument that was made with movies, being that they were visual rather than just text in a book.

Also, what's wrong with a parent not letting their kid be friends with someone. I've had situations where my parents thought certain kids were bad influences and didn't let me hang out with them. Yeah, I didn't like it, but it totally within a parent's authority to do that. Also, what's wrong with a parent talking to the parent of their child's friends and asking that they not allow their kid to play or watch certain things? And lastly, if a child gets a friend's parents to help him/her buy an M-Rated game, guess what? That type of thing is not covered by the new law. If an adult buys it, the law can't do anything, so that point is moot. Also, at some point, that kid is gonna bring the game home and is gonna get caught.

Parents have the power to do things about what their child watches or plays and doesn't have to force their kids to live a sheltered life. You know, they can actually talk to their kids about the violence they see on TV or in games if they know their kids will just play these games somewhere else. The law doesn't have to get involved. It shouldn't get involved.

[Clickme]

Yeah. If a parent "needs" help from a law jsut cus they don't wanna BE A PARENT and ACTUALLY check what their child is doing, that's called Lazy. A Parent is supposed to know what their child is doing, know who their friends are ,adn know what kinds of stuff they do. IT's called Parenting, which involves more than just feeding and transporting a kid around. It means knowing who they hang out with, what their interests are ,and beign a real part of their lives in both the authoritative ways and in actually taking the time and effort to learn their interests.

It's the lazy parents that want the government to swoop in and take all that responsibility away from them.

[tjlemke]

Originally Posted by Clickme

Yeah. If a parent "needs" help from a law jsut cus they don't wanna BE A PARENT and ACTUALLY check what their child is doing, that's called Lazy. A Parent is supposed to know what their child is doing, know who their friends are ,adn know what kinds of stuff they do. IT's called Parenting, which involves more than just feeding and transporting a kid around. It means knowing who they hang out with, what their interests are ,and beign a real part of their lives in both the authoritative ways and in actually taking the time and effort to learn their interests.

It's the lazy parents that want the government to swoop in and take all that responsibility away from them.

Yea but there is a point in which I think that line should be drawn. There's parenting and there's smothering. Might as well suffocate the kid with a pillow. Kids should be taught life lessons and watched out for but I've seen kids where their parents are involved in EVERYTHING and trust me, their fucked up. Probably couldn't tell the difference between a spoon and a fork cause their parents do it for them.

For the record I completely agree with you, just wanted to throw some BS out their for people to gnaw on.

[DanTails]

Originally Posted by Clickme

Yeah. If a parent "needs" help from a law jsut cus they don't wanna BE A PARENT and ACTUALLY check what their child is doing, that's called Lazy. A Parent is supposed to know what their child is doing, know who their friends are ,adn know what kinds of stuff they do. IT's called Parenting, which involves more than just feeding and transporting a kid around. It means knowing who they hang out with, what their interests are ,and beign a real part of their lives in both the authoritative ways and in actually taking the time and effort to learn their interests.

It's the lazy parents that want the government to swoop in and take all that responsibility away from them.

Do you think a good parent is one who is on 100% high alert with their kids, monitoring everything they do until they're 21?

I mean, can't go to public school, cause you can't watch them. Can't let them go to a friend's place, not without a full weekly inspection of everything inside the friend's house, including an interview with the parents on a regular basis. All while not driving your kid insane.

Although, I don't think the government needs to do ALL the parenting for them. (Definitely need to help out in school, obviously) But to think you can be the all knowing, all powerful parent over your child is a little bit ridiculous.

[Drachen]

Wow, what a freaky breakdown. The majority opinion was by Scalia joined by Kennedy, Ginsberg, Sotomayor and Kagan with a concurring opinion by Alito joined by Roberts. Thomas and Breyer dissented.