Calif. can't ban violent video game sales

Another one for freedom.

Link
Yeah. It shouldnt be up to the state what little Johnny or Suzie are buying for video games. It should be up to the parents.
Fred Wertham must be rolling in his grave.

I'm not precisely sure of the law in the US, but why should this be treated any differently to movies?

Kid can see all the violence they want on TV. It's up to the parents to watch their little darlings.
Reading comprehention, learn it.

I'm not talking about TV. I'm talking about movies, in terms of cinema releases and rentals.

I'm not sure it is.

Movies in the U.S. are rated by the Motion Picture Association of America, a group funded by movie producers. It isn't a government agency. The restriction of minors from R- and NC-17-rated films is by agreement in the industry, not by law. IIRC, when the MPAA established its ratings system, it was to avoid having the government institute one.

Now, if this recent decision is any precedent, the government would not be ALLOWED to control minors' access to materials.

And that's fine by me. I believe studios and theater owners have an interest in controlling access to their product and that parents should have the final decision on the matter.

Possibly because someone could say the movie theater is pandering to the kids?

So? That's up to the PARENTS. They are responsible for their rugrats.

Right. The MPAA polices itself. That's why they dont let little kids watch r rated movies. And that way they dont have to have the government do it for them.
As far as violent video games go, this law would prevent under 18 from buying violent video games. You know, Syfy and other cable and satellite networks show more violent programs to the under 18 crowd.
The same shit happened in the mid fiftys to the comic industry with Fred Wertham. That led to the CCA. Today the CCA is meaning less.
And if you want to talk about violence in the media, there are shows aimed at the under 18 crowd like Ben Ten, Batman, Young Justice, Justice League Unlimited.
Hell classic Tom and Jerry and Loony Toons were full of violent gunplay and that didnt make kids go out and shoot each other.
It's the enviroment and not the media that makes for violent kids.

That's why I asked for info, you dolt. Over here, age classifications are regulated by a government agency.

Go fuck yourself. I asked a simple question, better than what you do when you don't have all the facts, which is to yammer on, aimlessly repeating the same shit.

Califonia is over here, and that's the subject.

Wikipedia search took me two minutes.

The subject here sweetie is video game sales in California. Dont swirl the subject around with what the movies do.
No more like you do 99% of the threads you get involved in.

Christ dude. He just asked a simple question.

Video game sales in California? In terms of marketing, distribution, revenue? Or in terms, as your thread title suggests, of content?

The subject here is violence. Or media containing violent content, to be specific.

Did you want just a thread full of "Fuck, yeah!" and "Fuck California" or were you interested in a discussion of violent content in media?

That said, the Brothers Grimm amassed the lore of generations, most of it gory and violent and a reflection of the cultures it was created in. Then Disney, well, Disneyfied it, similarly to what Bowdler did with Shakespeare generations before. So now the pendulum swings to the opposite position, and it will inevitably swing back again.

Government getting involved where parents should be. Government of California creating a strawman IE violent video games.
You know. Government censoreship, protecting the people from themselves, the other end of the government saying "not so fast you". You know, a discussion.

So evenly divided between "Fuck, yeah!" and "Fuck California." Fair enough...

Video games already have a rating system, so it's up to the parents and the sales people. You can't argue for a ban because then that would mean adults wouldn't have access either, in which case it is a simple case of "Fuck California" in its attempt to use a "won't someone think of the children!" argument to ban a form of media for adults.

And he got it in post #5 and in post #9 he started flameing, sooo...
Welcome to the Red Room.

In other words you just want to instead of discuss about the artical I posted.
I'm somewhat disappointed but not surprised.

I'd like to note that in spite of K1A's continuous assertions that the 9th Court gets overturned "all the time", we have an example where it was upheld.

One the other hand... Do you think California or any state for that matter should have that right? You know, the "states rights" and all.
While I said it should be up to the parents to moniter their offsprings media activities, there's the subject of government censorship, be it local or federal.
Then there are the books mentioned in the artical.
Plus the subject of comic books in the mid fifties I mentioned in the OP.

I'd be happy to discuss violence in media as soon as you finish fucking around.

So, go ahead. I'm not stopping you. The subject is also censorship by the state ,any state for that matter. Not really an attack agaist California.

Exactly the point! It always seems with big government progressives that "It's for the children"! That's a path to the road to hell isnt it?
"We have to protect the children, so we have to stifle freedom of speech!"
Case in point

NO government -- local, county/parish, state/provincial/territorial, national/federal(/EU) -- should be in the business of restricting free speech or censoring what is available. That domain falls squarely on the shoulders of parents.

If they want to restrict 'violent' (or even sexual) games/movies, they need to find another means that doesn't violate freedom of expression.

I am surprised on how hard you jumped on Rick, btw -- he asked a legitimate question, and brought up how it's done in Ireland (which I disagree with, but I'm not in any position of getting Ireland to fix that) and you give him a 'Don't care how it's done Over There' neg. Good lord, some of us do have vested interested how its done in Ireland, and I happen to be one of them.

No, just ignoring the issues raised in Post #14.

So it's not just about video games, but about other media. Which is why there's no reason to jump on someone for expanding the discussion to movies.

I'll bite. Movies are already covered by the MPAA with a rating system, not imposed by the government. IE R rated 18 up.
Sooo... The op already covered violence in classic childrens books, so that part was covered. I'm ignoring the obviouse Disney sanitizing such classic books since it's pretty obvious why they do and not illegal for them to do so.
As I said in this thread, kids can turn on the TV and see more violence than they can get from a tv useing real actors and not CGI like in video games. The video game industry does have a rating system too for what it's worth. This is something that should be covered by the parents, not so much a government bureaucracy.
Now. What do you think about censoring video games? Who do you think is in the right here? Cali or the supreme court.

Californians can't handle violence from GTA or the witcher games.

Maybe you'll finally be able to get "GTA Lipstick Lesbians".

Thank you for outlining your POV here. It's helpful to have your full perspective.

What do I think about censoring video games? It's kind of like your attitude toward wealth. I don't have underage kids (and when I did I monitored their media very carefully), so it's of no real interest to me.

I am, however, mildly curious about why others who (A) don't have underage kids (or, if they do, monitor their video games personally) and (B) don't live in California, are fixated on this.