11-02-2010, 02:40 PM | #1 | |
|
Supreme Court to Decide Video Game case Today!
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/39969372/
Quote:
__________________
|
|
11-02-2010, 03:10 PM | #2 |
|
Belatedly realized this may be viewed as political... my bad, Mods please lock if you deem violates the rules!
__________________
|
11-02-2010, 03:11 PM | #3 |
Drives: '91 RS Vert, '11 Grand Cherokee Join Date: May 2009
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 2,343
|
There are holes in Californias argument to make game purchases to children punishable. He brings up an argument that a game that kills babies would be sold to a 13yr old. A game that had this kind of content would most likely be rated as M for Mature and not available for sale to anyone under the age of 17.
I say leave it up to the parents and stores to handle. The parent should have the right to decide what their kids can play and what they cant just as they do for TV programing. And hold the stores responsible if they are selling M games to children under the age of 17. |
11-02-2010, 03:16 PM | #4 |
One hot mess
Drives: 2011 Camaro 1LT/RS Join Date: Sep 2010
Location: Charlotte
Posts: 426
|
T his reminds me when Ice-T came out with his group, Body Count. The song Cop killer upset alot of people, so they decided to add the advisories to the CD's. I believe there was the same talk's going on, making it illegal etc etc.
|
11-02-2010, 03:35 PM | #5 | |
Drives: 2019 F150 RCSB Abyss FX4 Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Huntsville, AL
Posts: 2,277
|
Quote:
Wow! Five years!!! That is where your taxes are going! |
|
11-02-2010, 03:37 PM | #6 |
Gunning for Sixth
Drives: '03 ZR2 Blazer Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Woodhaven, Michigan
Posts: 9,358
|
California's argument to everything: KILL THE NON-BELIEVERS! RAWR!
|
11-02-2010, 03:53 PM | #7 |
|
My main argument is there is already a rating system in place, and just about EVERY retailer abides by it and will ID anyone that looks too young to buy a mature rated game. We don't fine stores that sell rated R movies to young kids, so why are video games suddenly different? There isn't any solid evidence to prove that violent video games have a negative impact on youth growing up (even though they technically shouldn't be playing it, but thats up to the parents).
__________________
|
11-02-2010, 04:51 PM | #8 |
General Motors Aficionado
Drives: 2023 GMC Canyon, 2020 Colorado Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Florida
Posts: 37,371
|
California...
__________________
2023 GMC Canyon Elevation 2020 Chevrolet Colorado W/T Extended Cab (State-issued) |
11-02-2010, 05:09 PM | #9 |
SoCal Headturners
Drives: 2010 SGM Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Anaheim Hills, California
Posts: 5,788
|
Just because I played call of duty and GTA doesn't mean I am going to shoot people
I don't get this I can't go buy a rated M game. What exactly are they trying to pass?? |
11-02-2010, 05:35 PM | #10 | |
|
Quote:
Furthermore, it proposes the use of an entirely different rating system than the one already in place and would require a 2 square-inch warning label on the front of all 'violent' video games. Why the current rating system isn't good enough for California, I'm not exactly sure. Perhaps we need flashing lights and a siren to go off whenever someone pics up a violent game, as the parents behind this law are unable to read apparently? Last point: There is no fine for a store that sells a rated R movie or an explicit CD to a minor. There are usually just punishments within the store itself for the employee that broke the rules.
__________________
|
|
11-03-2010, 12:05 AM | #11 |
Drives: 2010 supercharged LS3 Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: Le Mars, Iowa
Posts: 2,235
|
Well, cali is different than every other state. There are things that when in California will cause cancer and reproductive harm, but get them in any other state and they are perfectly safe.
|
11-03-2010, 10:25 AM | #12 |
|
Hmmm so California has like a curse on it is what you're saying?
__________________
|
11-03-2010, 10:44 AM | #13 |
Drives: 2SS/RS Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Western North Carolina
Posts: 7,182
|
I thought a decision was going to be made today?
In the article it says "Its decision is expected before its summer recess in June 2011." So we have to wait 7 months before it is decided? |
11-03-2010, 11:37 AM | #14 |
The Supreme Court heard the arguments yesterday and then they will deliberate and write up their decision. It normally takes a few months.
|
|
|
|
|
|