Quote:
Originally Posted by LordSappington
So, in general, this means that any kid in California can walk into Gamestop and buy a copy of Splatterhouse? That's... really dumb.
|
They sure can... as long as they can find a Gamestop where they don't enforce the company's rule about not selling games to minors.
In spite of what guys like Leland Lee would have us believe, the reason the law was struck down isn't because the Supreme Court wants 8-year-olds gawking at mutilated corpses in LA Noire. It was struck down because the law called for the state to regulate what content is available to whom. It doesn't matter who they're doing it for; it's still a violation of the 1st Amendment.
What's more, law enforcement would have to set aside resources to make sure the law was being enforced. That bit was a sticking point for a similar bill elsewhere years ago because supporters have yet to show a definitive causal link between kids being exposed to violent video games and increases in their aggression/violent behavior. In short, a law that protects people from something harmless is a useless law.
Finally, the law, which had no chance at all of passing in the first place, wouldn't have changed anything if it had passed. Supporters would have you believe there's an epidemic of kids sneaking off and buying violent video games, when they're really just getting their parents to buy it for them no problem. The industry has already taken steps to self-regulate, hence the reason we have a rating system and the reason Gamestop, Best Buy, etc cards people who buy M-rated games. The law passing would have only meant that retailers would be legally obligated to ask a parent if they really want their child playing an M-rated game, followed by a "yeah whatever," or "don't tell me how to raise my kids!"
If parents are worried about the content of a game, they can always check the back of the box for a rating and detailed information. If they don't buy their kids those games, but still don't want their kids playing a borrowed copy at home, they can put parental codes on their consoles to block mature content. They have more control over what games their kids can play than they do over what music they listen to, what movies they see, or what books they read. Legislation wouldn't do a damn thing. It's just a cheap ploy by lazy politicians hoping to scare up some votes with a little moral panic.
As for me, it's not that I think kids are entitled to play every game that comes out. I just want parents to understand that it's not the government's job to keep track of their kids' choice in media. Plus, I don't want the government to have even the slightest foothold in terms of blocking games. The last thing we need is for the government to start creeping towards what they have in Australia.
Linear Mode
