If there was not so many s*** parents we would not have silly laws like this. But hey, that is CA and they have Arnold for a Governor. Nuff' said.

It is the PARENT'S place to regulate what a child does for recreation, not the state's. Too many parents seek to shirk their responsibility by pushing it off on schools, police, and government. Amoral grandstanding politicians are always willing and eager to exploit this.
The solutiion is simple - parents need to do their job and PAY ATTENTIION to the activities of their offspring.

Yes, but then the Gov't steps in and pulls sh1t like telling the RIAA that the PARENT is not responsible for the 14 yr-olds online behaviour.

So who is responsible? Parents? Children?

Since children are generally too young to understand the consequences, and a lot of parents lately seem to be totally lacking in responsibility, how do you suggest we solve this problem, hmmm?

Instead of b****ing about the current solution, do you have a better one? A feasable one?

In case you haven't been paying attention lately, saying, "Let the parents deal with it" is merely supporting an ideal which is no longer in accordance with the reality of a situation in which parents simply cannot, or outright refuse to do so.

[Cheering, applause]

The answer to that one is easy - simply go with the trraditional solution: hold the parents responsible for the actions of their minor children. that's LEGALLY and FINANCIALLY responsible. That's the way it used to be, and should be now - and it requires no additional legislation in most places.

Idealism applauded, but this will *never* happen in the united states.

There's no way our Government would *ever* get away with telling any parent, "raise your kid like this, or else".

We need to go back to the old test...There is NO socially redeeming value to games that glorify and teach killing cops, breaking the law, running over people, and stealing cars. Desensitizing people to the horror of these acts and glorifying them to children is absolutely wrong. I would go further. I would put these companies on notice. Continue this trend and be put out of business.

Never gonna happen.

While banning the sale of these games to kids is well and good, there are plenty of adults, myself included, who get plenty of enjoyment out of games that feature homicide and other violent acts such as Max Payne, Carmageddon, the entire DOOM series, etc...

While the GTA games do not appeal to me, I see no reason to ban them from other adults.

Nothing wrong with a distracting, stress-relieving, non-threatening dose of virtual violence to ease tension after a long day.

SEIG HEIL!

How does restricting kids from playing violent or otherwise mature rated games compare to nazi germany?

Oh, right it doesn't.

*sniff* *sniff*

Anyone else smell troll?

I was referring to our friend BIL's restrictive attitude and view that the law is the solution to problems that are rightfully in the domain of the family.

And if a growing number of famillies take no responsibility for the actions of their children, then what?

Oh well?

Sorry. You lose.

It's legislators writing a law they damn well know won't stand. They just want to have the appearance of doing something.

Then, when a judge throws this out, they'll say, "we tried"... all the while wasting Californian's tax money.

The legislators get 2 things though; good PR and effectively a few million dollar fine out of the industry in the lobbying/legal effort.

So who wins in all of this? Politicians and lawyers.

"Whaat a country!"

Yeah, it's just such a damned bad idea to to try and keep violent/sexual content out of the hands of 8 yr-olds.

Keep in mind that the 17 yr-olds parents, if they deem their child mature enough, could go out and buy the game for them without fearing any legal onslaught.

I see no problem with this law (aside from the vague definition of violence), even constitutionally. They're barring it from CHILDREN, not from tax-paying citizens.

If your arguing that a childs right to buy this game is protected by the Constitution or Bill of Rights, you are sorely mistaken.

Who wins? Hopefully all of us.

I wish all parents could be trusted to keep these games out of their childrens consoles. Too bad many of them just don't give a sh1t. Maybe if they did, we wouldn't need laws like this.

Well said.

ditto

clap clap clap clap clap clap clap clap

Amen!

FYI:

1. Many children over ARE tax paying citizens (think 14+ with a summer job)

2. There is nothing in the bill of rights that limits its scope to adults only.

"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

That being said, I don't see a problem limiting sales of violent games to minors, I just think you need a standardised way of doing it.

@ 1:

Technically, minors are not taxed. There are with-holdings on their incomes, but they are paid back after April 15. So it's kinda like they give the government a no-interest loan lol.

Actually, they are taxed.

Sales tax is the first that comes to mind.
Income tax on interest earning accounts.
Then there's Social Security, not really a tax, but still a witholding.

So, yeah, they are taxed.

So your argument against this is that they pay sales-tax?

Or are you just nit-piking because you have nothing else to stand on?

Seriously, if you have something to contribute here, go for it. Otherwise, leave the discussion to folks who can actually form reasonable arguments regarding the issue and not just some Pythonesque "no, it isn't" BS.

Amen!

Yeah, I noticed how you completely skipped my first post and just centered on a technicality.

There's nothing in the bill of rights that limits the scope of the bill to adults only.

Children have rights too, and AGAIN, that being said, the problem with this law is that it does not set a specific standard.

Now, for your entertainment, I'll spell entertainment wrong...

'entertnament'

Now you can go correct my spelling and have a grand time doing it and feel justified in attacking me personally because I dared to disagree with your comment.

Feel free to go correct my grammar as well.

lmao.. that's just childish. Did I once object to your grammar or spelling? Accusing me of being a spelling or grammar nazi to derail the argument is quite clever....too bad it has been done to death elsewhere.

But just so we're clear:

I now ask you to read some of my other posts, so you will notice that we actually agree on your main point concerning the fact that they need to more narrowly define what they mean by 'excessive violence'.

Now, to address the other:

You state:

"There's nothing in the bill of rights that limits the scope of the bill to adults only. "

Short answer: There's nothing limiting it, and nothing narrowing it, so how can you claim it applies at all?

Long answer:

The documents in question, The constitution, of the United States, and the Bill of Rights, do not state *anything* particularly regarding children. Why? Because it was designed by adults to protect their specific rights and freedoms.

It doesn't mention children. There's not a single line in either document that any any way referrs to the rights/freedoms granted or denied them.

So why would *anyone*, I wonder, use it in an argument about childrens rights? It simply does not pretain to them.

That being said, the 14th amendment has, in some cases, been deemed to include children, and other portions of both documents have been applied to children as well.

But unless you can give me specifics on how a specific portion of either of these documents has been legally applied to children in a case such as this, the argument is simply pointless...which would be why you did not get a response.

"There's nothing limiting it, and nothing narrowing it, so how can you claim it applies at all?"

"We the People of the United States..."

I would say that includes all citizens, regardless of age, gender or race.

Or was it..

"We the People of the United States..."

referring to the folks signing the document.

Seriously, this could go on for days....got anything solid?

The fact is that it doesn't specify either so arguing that it does or does not is subjective to legal precedent, not opinion.

Well, then the constitution is void, because everyone who signed it is dead.

Great logic there.

Oh, I get it now. You're an idiot.

Putting words into my mouth, twisting my arguments does not refute them, it just proves your inability to come up with anything valid.

I said it did not apply to this law because there is not precedent and nothing in the documents specifically regarding this in any way.

Whatever, man. Don't go away mad, just go away.

Claiming the preamble of the constitution applies to those who wrote it is the height of idiocy.

Of course the constitution applies to all the people of the US, it's the document the defines our entire form of government.

Whatever, go dance around the subject then begin making personal attacks when you start losing an argument.

Feel free to reply, as people like you must have the last word. You can just randomly hit the keyboard, I won't care, it will make as much sense as your other arguments.

Chirst.

Okay. I give up. If you just wanted to knee-jerk and stonewall, why didn't you say so? I would have stopped trying to explain it to you a hell of a long time ago.

Thanks for wasting my time. Cya 'round.

oh, and...

last word.

HA-ha!

Yawn... You still here?

-_- This is nutz. I'm surprised that the ACLU isn't in on this already. There's not enough information about the law that was passed in order to really dive into the meat of this here. I'm against censorship...but sometimes common sense should dictate how this needs to be handled...

"One jury may find that a particular game is a 'violent video game,' and another jury may find that it is not"

Hmm... is that like "one jury may find a suspect guilty of murder and another jury might not"? Isn't that what juries do? They don't find the truth, the make a judgement based on facts.

"Isn't that what juries do?"

ROFLMAO!

Ummm.... why?

"The two groups ... claim the law violates a game maker's First Amendment rights to free speech"

If that's true, then I guess the R-rating for movies does too.

Retards.

I agree that a clearer method for determiniing violence needs to be hammered out, but as far as this regards free speech? Um, Can we give that man a side of "Clue" with that self-righteousness? This hasn't got a damn thing to do with the First Amendment.

Especially since parents can still buy them for their children. Of course, those parents should have been neutered before they had kids, but...

...hind-sight is always 20-20.

This has nothing to do with rights, or, at least not those of the game companies.

Exactly.

Well said. I'm one of the first to stand up against censorship and to protect the First Amendment, but then there are cases such as this that attempt to abuse the First Amendment defense.

I also agree, that what makes a rated R game needs to be defined. I also agree that if these groups win, then rated r movies, alcahol, cigarettes, porn, guns should be allowed to minors too.

"If that's true, then I guess the R-rating for movies does too."

No, it doesn't. Why not you ask? Simple. No law involved.

This is not about preventing kids from buying nasty games. It's about GOVERNMENTS passing LAWS that restrict PUBLICATION and DISTRIBUTION. And that's EXACTLY what the First Amendment is there for. Listening to Rush Limbaugh doesn't make you an expert on Constitutional law.

The California law is unconstitutional NOT because it is restrictive of speech, but because it restricts speech WITHOUT providing clear-cut standards by which the issue is to be judged. Supreme Court has ruled REPEATEDLY that restrictions on expression MUST be clearly described and kept to the bare minimum.
The legislators knew this, but went ahead anyway.

In other words, lazy-ass legislators slapped something together KNOWING it would be thrown out, because it wins them points at election time without actually having to actually worry about the law going into effect.

"WITHOUT providing clear-cut standards by which the issue is to be judged."

Re-read my first sentance to realize we are both in agreement. But thanks for the flame, man, I was getin' chilly.

Thanks.

Bye.

Rush Limbaugh..really. I mean, that's just too funny.

I will be the one who chooses what kind of games my kids play.

As well you should be. And this law DOES NOT AFFECT THAT RIGHT.

No-one is taking away your right as a parent to make these decisions; You are more than welcome to buy GTA:SA for your kids. If your under-aged children are mature enough in your opinion for such content, a applaud your parenting skills.

This law is aimed at the children who's parent's couldn't give a flying fsck.

Then you should go and do that then.

Thanks.

The real problem with society today:

A mother in MA could smoke crack, rob people blind, screw every man she meets, and live in a half way house, but yet the state would rather re-unite the child with it's mother than leave it with it's father who has a new wife, two jobs, and a solid roof over his head.

All the while that kid is learning how to knock over convenience stores, gets it's necessary attention from the local gang and on top of that it gets to remove the last bit of emotion by playing video games that are 10 years more mature than they are.

Just another reason why I won't live in MA, check your states paternity / custody laws very carefully BEFORE you get screwed.
(This very scenario has happened to more than a few people that I know personally, and I'll bet it's happened to someone many of you know.)

I'm all about this law, children don't have constitutional rights, and parent's that won't grow up and raise their children properly shouldn't get to keep them either.

Moral of this story, the law is just a little lenient in my opinion.

'nuff said :-)

You know what? Maybe I should sh!t all over their faces. It's only to make a statement..."me and my" first amendment shall protect me! Better yet encourage kids to kill people, since "me and my" first amendment shall protect me there too. Geez, if George Washington those other 54 guys had any idea that the US would rule nudity as "speech" maybe they'd of clarified. I guess they could not predict how stupid *SOME* Americans can be in 2005...

(PS: Yes I'm American, and it embarasses me that so many fellow Americans believe everything on the news and can't frikin' think for themselves. Other citizens reading this--please, not all Americans are this stupid...)

Im sorry about ur crack wh*** situation. So either do something about it, or just sit in front of your computer and cry about it.

Wasn't MY problem. ;-)

Besides, the problem isn't with the person (not speaking of the crack wh*** here) it's with the laws that support the problem.

lmao.. Truer words, man.

But don't just ascribe such behavior to women, eh? I know...just one example, but I've known plenty fo situations where the roles were reversed.

Not every state leans towards women where custody is involved, and not every state necessarily leans towards either.

It's a problem with state/federal jurisdiction and how one state can be allowed to interpret something one way and another entirely different.

Laws need to change, and some consistancy in interpretation must somehow be enforced.

And now were way the hell off-topic, so...

"I will be the one who chooses what kind of games my kids play."

"So either do something about it, or just sit in front of your computer and cry about it."

Wow...you niether read articles you respond to, nor provide constructive comments, criticisms, or arguments.

This boys, and girls, is a troll. Do not feed them or they will tend to stick around. Do feel free to poke them though, it's fun.

Limbaugh...*feels his spine tingle*

Children DO have constitutional rights.

Read the constitition and tell me where it says, 'this document doesn't apply to the following people'.

"This boys, and girls, is a troll"

pot...kettle...black.

And just where the hell does it tell you it does?

It doesn't say it's limited to adults...it doesn't say it includes children. You argue that becasue it doesn't mention limits, it applies. But since it doesn't mention inclusions, where's your point of reference for implying that it does?

Got any legal precident where a specific portion of the Bill was applied to children in a court of law? (And not as extensions of their guardian, mind.)

Since it does not reference children at all, you'll have to find precedent to apply it in an argument. Otherwise you're just spouting misinformation.

Have I strayed once from the topic? Have I not responded with explanations, and further details when an conclusion of mine was questioned?

Do I post opinions as fact without backing them up?

Just because you and I have differing opinions does not make me a troll, my friend.

"Got any legal precident where a specific portion of the Bill was applied to children in a court of law?"

Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District et al. (1969)

Great, they can wear black armbands. I could name several cases where choice of clothing was *not* considered a right, but most of these involve private, not public institutions.

Still, what the hell does that have to do with buying adult oriented games? The two are not even close to comparable.

My point exactly!

They are very comparable, both video games and black armbands are forms of symbolic speech.

"Besides, the problem isn't with the person (not speaking of the crack wh*** here) it's with the laws that support the problem."

Huh? What laws are you referring to? I know of no law requiring parents to buy GTA SA for their kids - or preventing them from denying it to same.

My kids love grand theft auto, and so do I. Its a cool game.So if theres a law saying my kids cant buy a game who cares.If the game doesnt bother me then ill go buy it for them

Video games are forms of symbolic speech?

So every time you sit down to play your PS2 you're doing it for the sole purpose of making political or social commentary?

Bullsh1t.

Twist.

1. I didn't say 'every time you sit down to play'

2. Speech is protected even if the sole purpose is not commentary.

Publishing a game is protected as a form of free speech.

And they are free to publish it and sell it.

Your point?

That they can't sell it to minors?

But they can, via the parents. God forbid the sale to children of violent games should be up to the parents, eh? This law forces responsibility onto the parents shoulders..where it very much should be.

I believe that restricting the sale of such material, when properly defined, does not violate the manufactueres rights to freedom of speech since it's only limitation of sale is that the children must purchase the product via their hopefully mature parents.

I do not believe the restriction is such that it unreasonably limits thier ability to "say" what they want.

The *only* reason the game companies are crying rights violations is because they market these adult-oriented games to kids and they know that if this law stays they will *lose* many of those sales.

Do not be fooled that they have the integrity of the Constitution or Bill of Rights in mind when they whine and cry about this law. It's all about the bottom-line. Nothing else.

Ok, lets review:

Fewt said:
"I'm all about this law, children don't have constitutional rights..."

I said:
Children do have rights

You said:
"Got any legal precident where a specific portion of the Bill was applied to children in a court of law?"

My reply:
"Tinker v. Des Moines
Independent Community School District et al. (1969)"

The question "Got any legal precident where a specific portion of the Bill was applied to children in a court of law?" was answered.

That debate is now over, the question you asked was answered factually and logically.

New argument

"Still, what the hell does that [black armbands] have to do with buying adult oriented games?"

My reply:
Both wearing armbands and publishing games are protected forms of speech.

Your reply:

"So every time you sit down to play your PS2 you're doing it for the sole purpose of making political or social commentary?"

Comment is spurious. The question 'was what does wearing black armbands have to do with videogames?' It was answered with "both are protected in the bill of rights"

I replied with a correction of your comment.

So, Here we are. Honestly, I agree with some of your new post. I don't think the game companies are only crying violations because of potential lost sales. It really is a poorly written law and they shouldn't have a law where a "Tom and Jerry" videogame could wind up classified with "Grand Theft Auto".

Uh, you are the retard. Maybe you finally got a clue. Yes, the R-rating for movies does as well! Apparently you didn't realize that there is no law, and never has been a law restricting minors from seeing a R-rated movie.

It is, and always has been, a voluntary decision by theaters to not allow minors to see R/PG-13 movies.