Court: Adult Video Games Can Be Sold To Children, Inconsistent Laws Continue (With Poll)

Poll at bottom of post.

You all know I’m a gamer, and don’t blame video games for the problems in society. Frankly, to do so would be asinine.  I also don’t really care about the violence aspect.  I’m more concerned with the nudity, and the hypocrisy of the law.

With that said, US law is full of hypocrisy.  This latest ruling only ads to that.

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that it is unconstitutional to bar children from buying or renting violent video games, saying government doesn’t have the authority to “restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed”

Ok, fine.  But what about movies and magazines?

Music and books have been protected under similar guidelines, and this ruling places video games in the same category.  Typically, kids have been allowed to buy music and books with adult content because there are no images.

However, those same kids have been prevented from buying/viewing movies and magazines which visually show the same content.  The difference … visual imagery.

So how is it that the courts can rule that video games, which use imagery, should be protected while movies and magazines, which use imagery, should not be?  Why does the court see a difference in a nude magazine, and an embedded sex scene in a video game?

Perhaps it is that we are dealing with graphic depictions of people vs actual images of people.  If so, could Playboy convert their images to cartoons using Photoshop in order to legally sell to minors?  That’s no different than video game developers using live actors for their game character’s movements.

Violent video games don’t make kids violent … period, end of story.  A simple label warning for parents is more than enough ‘protection.’  I question why the court feels it is ok to sell violent video games to kids, but they can’t get into an R rated violent movie.

Ultimately, I’d be happy with just a little consistency in the law.  After we have that, we can then debate the issue properly.


Posted on June 27, 2011, in Big Government, Censorship, Dumbassery and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink. 6 Comments.

  1. Games, like movies, are rated for a reason. I adore violent video games myself, but I wouldn’t want my son to be around while I play them until he’s much older and understands the difference between fantasy and reality. I’ve gone through my iTunes library, selecting songs that I would feel comfortable with him hearing, and only listen to those songs when he’s around. I don’t watch TV or movies that are inappropriate for him when he’s around. The ratings provided on virtually every form of entertainment are there to help people make informed decisions about their entertainment choices. What’s the point of rating a game M (which is 17+) only to turn around and allow a 9-year-old to buy it? Video games (like television, movies, music and even comic books) are rated according to content. Why would the government decide to ignore that rating if the questionable content is presented in pixels?

    • It’s strange that the government would choose to take the position that one form of media’s ratings is purely suggestive, while the other is enforceable by law.

  1. Pingback: More BS from anti-gamers on message boards… « The Erosion of Freedom

  2. Pingback: Continuing my study into anti-gaming posts on articles condemning games… « The Erosion of Freedom

  3. Pingback: New Biased “survey” finds that 39% of all adults want violent game makers sued… « The Erosion of Freedom

  4. Pingback: New Biased “survey” finds that 39% of all adults want violent game makers sued… « The Erosion of Freedom