Common Sense Beats Out MN Games Law 302
superdan2k writes "A federal court judge dropped the bomb on Minnesota's pending gaming law that would have fined minors for purchasing games with the mature or adults-only ratings. The lawsuit against the legislation was brought by video game manufacturers who claimed that it infringed on free speech. The judge agreed, and the ruling said that the state had failed to prove that graphic video games were harmful to children."
Fining the Wrong Way (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fining the Wrong Way (Score:2)
Re:Fining the Wrong Way (Score:5, Funny)
NC General Statue, 105-113.107: Excise tax on unauthorized substances.
I wonder if the legislators find it odd that most don't pay...
Re:Fining the Wrong Way (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Fining the Wrong Way (Score:3, Insightful)
Minnesota lawmakers hoped their approach - penalizing the minors who got the games, instead of the retailers who sold or rented them - would have fared better in court than overturned state laws that went after retailers in Illinois, California, Michigan and elsewhere.
That approach has already been tried and shot down by the courts. So they were attempting (as usual) to re-pass the same damn unconstitutional law, trying to find some way to circumvent the court ru
Re:Fining the Wrong Way (Score:2)
Re:Fining the Wrong Way (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fining the Wrong Way (Score:3, Informative)
Tennesse
Georgia
Florida
Alabama
Connecticut
Texas
This is not an exhaustive list, and is completely alegory by nature.
From my experience, the reason there are not many 18 year old
Re:Fining the Wrong Way (Score:2)
Great news (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Great news (Score:3, Interesting)
The problem is, they CANT prove that violent/graphic video games are harmful to minors, because they're not. According to this site [gamerevolution.com], violent crime rates for children is at an all-time low.
-------
NOTE TO SELF: Don't wait until userids are near 1M to join a website after reading it for 7 years.
Which little boy would that be? (Score:5, Insightful)
"One of the most popular games in America teaches a little boy how to have sex with a prostitute and then beat her to death, and then rewards that," said Rep. Jeff Johnson, who sponsored the bill in the House. "I think some small restriction on that is reasonable."
Let's rewind about 30 minutes to where little boy's mother bought the game for little boy despite game retailer's warning that the game might not be appropriate for him.
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:2)
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:3, Insightful)
In any of the GTA3 games, you can pick up a hooker, poke her in your car for some hit points, and then run her over and get your money back. Or shoot her, or beat her down, etc etc. However, this is not a focus of the game, and if you didn't know the feature was there, you could only get it by being a smartass (like by trying to pick one up to see if you could) or by accid
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:2)
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:2)
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:5, Insightful)
One of the most profitable games in America teaches young politicians how fuck over their constituents while becoming prostitutes to campaign donors, and then tax their constituents to poverty, optionally imprisoning and torturing their opponents to, and then rewards that.
Tell you what. You go first, Rep. Johnson. Then we'll clean up our naughty video games.
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:2)
You're forgetting that because this law has been struck down, the kid can buy it himself without his mother's knowledge. The whole point of this legislation was to try to give parents more control over whether their kids play these games without banning them from having their own money or watching them every second of the day.
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:3, Insightful)
Who thinks that's a better idea than government intervention?
The taking away of a parental responsability is not the same thing as "giving parents more control". And as any good parent will tell you, you don't have to watch the kid "every second of the day" to know what they're playing. You only have to avoid compleatly ignoring them.
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:3, Insightful)
When you were a kid, did your parents strip-search you before you entered the house or something? You don't think it's easy for kids to sneak stuff past their parents?
That's only true if you don't consider the possibility that they know
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:2)
No, no stripsearches. But they did ask what I was up to when I popped a new game in the ol' Nintendo in the family room there. I know these days kids commonly have game systems in their rooms, but if you have a sneaky kid, it's gaming in the family room or not at all. This isn't rocket science.
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:2)
You are still assuming that you are always home when they are home. A reasonable assumption for small children, but not for teenagers.
I'm thinking about teenagers rather than really small children. Old enough to have a bit of money from a paper round or something, but young enough for it still to be acceptable for their
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:2)
No, I don't belive that they always act in accordance with parent's wishes. But I do belive that teenagers that have been taught right from wrong, and have a good, trusting relationship with their parent's aren't really going to be
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:2)
Really? I don't see it infringing on anybody's right to freedom of expression. The games would still be on sale, people would still buy them. It's not like there's book burning going on, the games would still be widely available.
There's already plenty of restrictions on freedom of speech, but people from the USA have the curious practice of referring to speech that is undesirable as not being spee
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:2, Insightful)
You mitigate what you can, teach your children how to think rather than what to think, and then trust them - you have no choice. My folks still have no idea about half the stuff I did as a kid, and I'm not naive enough to think I'm 'bet
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:2)
I completely agree. It's just that I see this law as part of the "mitigate what you can" step. Making it illegal for people to sell them violent games mitigates the problem of the games being easily obtainable. Then they'd be harder to obtain, but not impossible to obtain, which is why the problem is mitigated, not solved. And this is where the other two steps come into play.
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:2)
Sure. There are all kinds of laws that require other people to do things for another person's benefit. Tax is an obvious one. And, a more relevant example, it's illegal to sell kids alcohol and nicotine, and if a parent has enough control over their kids' lives to prevent them from playing violent games, then they've got enough control over their kids' lives to stop them from drinking and smoking. And yet in that case, not many peo
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:2)
How old is the kid we are talking about? If we're talking about a four year-old, sure. But are you seriously suggesting that parents should micromanage their kids' lives when they are teenagers? Require permission to go to the store, search them for contraband when they come back in, forbid them from entering
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:2)
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:3, Insightful)
You're kidding, right? You seriously think it's feasible for the average parent to spend their entire day, from waking in the morning to going to sleep at night, watching over their kids, for eighteen years? And the kid won't grow up to be a complete raving lunatic?
Suffer? T
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:2)
You both have opinions: GET THE FUCK OVER IT!
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:3, Funny)
One of the most popular games in America teaches a little boy how to have sex with a prostitute and then beat her to death, and then rewards that
It teaches a little boy how to have sex with a prostitute and then beat her to death? Is this how:
wwwawwaw<space><ctrl>z<ctrl><ctrl><ctrl><space>< space>wwwwwww<space>wwww<ctrl><ctrl>
(don't let your kids see this)
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:5, Funny)
Yes, after she gets in the car and you drive somewhere secluded, you both sit absolutely still in the front seat fully clothed staring forward and not touching each other while the car's shocks make it bounce. While all this happens your money magically transforms into health. After this, the woman gets out and walks away.
And that's how cars have sex.
Re:Which little boy would that be? (Score:2)
ESRB? (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:ESRB? (Score:5, Insightful)
What is the point of having ratings if they aren't enforced? If the game says M, only those only over 17 should be able to buy it.
Rating games strictly provides information on the content. If retailers want to voluntarily restrict sale of certain kinds of games to minors, well and good. It is a free country. If the government, however, wants to pass a law forcing retailers to restrict sale, well that is a different story. It is called "censorship" and their needs to be a real and compelling public interest. Until the reason for the restriction is a fairly well documented scientific event with clear causality the government has no business trying to enforce censorship.
Re:ESRB? (Score:2)
Re:ESRB? (Score:2)
I'm sorry to tell you, but the US is a democracy, not a meritocracy. Thus, what the people want goes, not what is "right" scientifically.
You do know this isn't true, right? In a straight up democracy if 51% of the people vote to restrict free speech with censorship, the law restricts free speech. In the US, 66% of Congress (super-majority) have to agree to pass a constitutional amendment to override any of the existing amendments in the constitution. Further, the constitution trumps state law if they con
Re:ESRB? (Score:2)
Er, if you really want to argue definitions, you're wrong. I quote [answers.com]:
Re:ESRB? (Score:2)
You only have to stay in office for two terms.
After that, you can't be president again anyway, so who cares if anyone would want you to be?
Meanwhile, you get to hand your friends piles of money, and slip a bunch into your own pocket, to boot.
Re:ESRB? (Score:5, Insightful)
Movies have ratings and kids cannot enter the theatre to see them, but nobody complains about censorship in that regard, the kid can just wait until he is old enough.
There is no law that says a movie must be rated (there are many unrated) and no law that says theaters cannot let minors see R or X-rated films. Certain states and localities have passed laws that say that, but they have always been overturned when challenged.
How about fairgrounds, are they censoring the rides because they have a height chart and restrict kids from their freedom to ride on them?
Again, this is voluntary on the part of the fairground operators, not mandated by law in most cases. There are certain restrictions on heavy equipment and safety, but that is for a clear danger to the safety of the operators and mostly covers providing machinery known to be dangerous and not informing the user.
Its not censorship, its common sense.
The government restricting what citizens can see and hear is censorship. If you think in this case they should do so, well great for you. That doesn't make it legal and it does not demonstrate a danger to children.
Re:ESRB? (Score:2)
As for fair grounds, those restrictions are for safety reasons. Short children would be at risk of personal injury if they rode attractions meant for taller participants. Essentially they're no different from rules requireing you to wear a hardhat at a construction site; it has nothing to do with censorship and everything to do with avoidi
Re:ESRB? (Score:2)
Re:ESRB? (Score:3, Interesting)
All ratings from videogames to TV shows to movies are self-imposed.
There is NO law that prevents minors from enterting R rated movies.
Even things like "XXX" movies are not government rated. If someone is arrested for selling pornography to a minor, they first have to establish that the item in question is indeed pornography (sure in many cases this is trivial, but there have been several cases where comic books containing sexual material have been seized and t
Re:ESRB? (Score:2)
Is the current rating system for movies censorship?
No, because it is voluntary, not a law.
Is requiring proof of ID to purchase cigarettes or liquor censorship?
No, it is a hazardous materials law, upheld because science has provided clear evidence that both cause harm to minors.
Voluntary ratings like the movie industry are great. Censorship laws like this are not.
Re:ESRB? (Score:2)
All ratings from videogames to TV shows to movies are self-imposed. There is NO law that prevents minors from enterting R rated movies.
Even things like "XXX" movies are not government rated. If someone is arrested for selling pornography to a minor, they first have to establish that the item in question is indeed pornography (sure in many cases this is trivial, but there have been several cases where comic books containing sexual material have been seized
Re:ESRB? (Score:2)
Re:ESRB? (Score:2)
Even things like "XXX" movies are not government rated. If someone is arrested for selling pornography to a minor, they first have to establish that the item in question is indeed pornography (sure in many cases this is trivial, but there have been several cases where comic books containing sexual material have been seized a
Correct (Score:5, Insightful)
"Minnesota lawmakers hoped their approach - penalizing the minors who got the games, instead of the retailers who sold or rented them - would have fared better in court than overturned state laws that went after retailers in Illinois, California, Michigan and elsewhere."
That's real good, fine your customers. Who these lawyers talk to the RIAA?
The retailers should definitely do a better job of not selling to minors. Can they ask for ID?
Parents need to just step up and pay more attention to what their children are doing, until the become an adult, and do what they want.
Re:Correct (Score:5, Insightful)
I believe their parents would be on the hook for that. I'm fine with going after the minors in cases like this (not video games, but cigarettes, booze, etc.) in addition to the retailer. Back in my Ann Arbor days I used to help watch the door and check ID's for an Italian cafe/bar just off campus. Underage kids were always trying to get in, and despite honest efforts to stop them, sometimes one does get through. When that happens and the place gets busted, they lose their liquor license (and many, many thousands of dollars) but nothing happens to the kid. That's just plain wrong.
Re:Correct (Score:2)
What's wrong with it? The simple fact is that it is the responsibility of the business to keep minors out, and if they can't do that, they don't need to be in business. This responsibility is only fair in light of the sta
Re:Correct (Score:2)
you would be surprised at the quality of some of the fake id's out there.. hell I had a friend of mine take one of his cousins birth cert down to the dmv and gave all the right answers and got a license saying he was 22 when he was 17..
it was state issued and the two of them looked very alike.. now if he goes to a bar and gets buste
Re:Correct (Score:2)
Incorrect (Score:2)
Actually, my understanding is that it is unlawful to serve alcohol to a minor, unless you are said minor's legal guardian, or sell alcohol to a minor. I don't think there's anything illegal about drinking as a minor.
However, I dare say that possession of a fake ID is at least worth a small fine...
Dan Aris
Re:Incorrect (Score:3, Informative)
You're wrong, "MIP" is an oft-used acronym for "minor in posession" (of alcohol) and it's a crime. It's also illegal to serve alcohol to a minor. It's not illegal if you're their parent, BUT if they are busted for being in posession then you too can get busted, as an accessory to their crime
Re:Correct (Score:2)
No, it's illegal to allow someone under legal age to enter your establishment. There's the verb you were looking for. Selling a minor alcohol is actually a separate offense.
Who pays? (Score:2)
If they're under 17, wouldn't the partents pay the fine anyways? thus not teaching the kids a lesson. Stupid law, glad it's dead.
Re:Who pays? (Score:5, Insightful)
Problem With US in General (Score:4, Interesting)
Re:Problem With US in General (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Problem With US in General (Score:2)
Who says that those so-called "liberals" can't be social conservatives? Seriously, what on earth gave you the idea that either political party has any interest whatsoever in liberty?
In the US, the repubs are pushing social conservatism on religious grounds (abortion, gay marriage and the like), while the dems are pushing that same sort of social conservatism on censorship grounds ("think of the children!"). It's just a qu
Re:Problem With US in General (Score:2)
Unfortunatley, those particular voters want to fuck with my personal life more than the other voters who just want to waste my tax dollars on social programs.
Personally, I'd rather have wasted tax money than being forced to have more god and church in my life.
Re:Problem With US in General (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Problem With US in General (Score:5, Insightful)
You also make the mistake of connecting your dissatisfaction of "the current administration" to the resurgence of social conservatism. Growing social conservatism isn't something that GW Bush introduced. This has been happening since Regan was voted in. The 80's marked the end of 20 or so years of very liberal social behavior. In my opinion, the country started to reel conservatism back in again and voted for President Clinton. Who knows how his behavior as President may have affected the social feelings of the population at large.
I'm very much a conservative. Regarding your list of "social issues" I'm: against media censorship, against gay marraige (but not against civil unions and gay couples having all "married couple" benefits), against the government setting any abortion laws (the issue of abortions being right or wrong is a very separate issue from the government setting the laws), and I'm okay with people having the right to burn the flag.
Lastly, regarding your remark that "social conservativism has taken hold at the state level", I should point out that Minnesota (I'm a resident of this state) has been a solid blue state (Democrat - DFL if you're from here) for as long as I can remember. Remember that one state that didn't vote for Regan in his 1984 landslide? That was Minnesota. That being said, this state probably does have the most socialy conservative liberals in the US
Re:Problem With US in General (Score:2)
The process is this:
Problem "foo" pops up, generally as the result of some sensational news coverage of an otherwise relatively common event.
One or more vocal pressure groups decide that "foo" is a problem.
One or more politicians decide that taking up the cause of "foo" is a route to higher polls, re-election, more donations, waxy yellow buildup, or just will get them more sex from the cute young interns.
Fine the Shops not the kids (Score:5, Interesting)
Here in the UK shops are fined large amounts, and even risk prison for breaking age based laws.
Here is an overview from the trading standards [tradingstandards.gov.uk]:
Video cassette tapes/DVDs/computer games
You must not sell, rent or supply a video cassette or DVD unless the British Board of Film Classification has classified it.
You must not supply (including hiring out) a video cassette tape or DVD to a person who is under the age marked on the video cassette tape/DVD.
Most computer games are exempt from classification but if the game is classified then it must not be supplied to a person who is under the age marked on the game.
The age restrictions are 12,15 and 18 .
The maximum fine for selling or renting an age restricted cassette/DVD to a child under the specified age is £5000 and/or up to 6 months imprisonment.
Restricted 18 video cassettes and DVDs can be supplied only in licensed sex shops to persons 18 years of age and older.
Re:Fine the Shops not the kids (Score:2)
Now, if they'd put out a law to make it a fine-able offense to sell games to kids who are under the ESRB suggested age rating, I'd have had no problem with that. But, as usual, they put all the blame on the buyer, so if you bought something that was age unsuitable the retailer got the money for the sale, and you got the fine.
Re:Fine the Shops not the kids (Score:4, Insightful)
Here in the UK shops are fined large amounts, and even risk prison for breaking age based laws. Here is an overview from the trading standards...
This is the US, not the UK. Here is an overview from our trading standards:
The decision of the judge was correct in all respects, as far as US law is concerned.
Re:Fine the Shops not the kids (Score:3, Insightful)
That wouldn't work very well, because in the US typically the shops aren't selling the game to the kid. Typically what happens is what's happened in the last 3-4 incidents to make the news: the parent or another adult buys the game, gives it to their kid, then gets outraged at the content of the game. The part where they bought it and handed it to little Johnny without checking it first seems to conveniently get forgotten. And how can the shop do anything about this? They only see the parent buying, and the
Re:Fine the Shops not the kids (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Fine the Shops not the kids (Score:2)
While it might be simpler to have government regulation of the media, that simply isn't the way it is in the USA. Until the government regulates film, music, and tv, then to single out videogames is illegal. All of this is simply grandstanding by p
Re:Fine the Shops not the kids (Score:2)
Why? The ratings are voluntary and provided by the industry itself. Purchasing the software is voluntary. What is the logic behind making a voluntary private sector arrangement mandatory by law? Isn't this like delegating legislative power to a private entity?
Oh, and UK != MN, btw. So "here in the UK" means jack for this discussion.
If the government is going to make the observance of ratings man
Re:Fine the Shops not the kids (Score:2)
Re:Fine the Shops not the kids (Score:2)
And I wonder, if they did notice, would they also make a distinction between a movie and an unrated director's cut of the same movie. The Riddick movie and game might be an interesting test pair too. The movie was edited to a PG-13 after initially getting an R, but the Director's Cut version is Unrated. (The game is M.)
Interesting: the IMDb lists the game [imdb.com] but does not appear
Moral persecution (Score:2, Insightful)
Your morals are not my morals and it's my freaking right not to get them shoved down my throat!!
Just some frustration oozing out, I'm better now...
Re:Moral persecution (Score:2)
Yeah, good luck with that. It would take about 2 days before the supposedly 'free thinking minority' started arguing about what color to paint the new white house or some other such inane concept.
Re:Moral persecution (Score:2)
Re:Moral persecution (Score:2)
Might as well start enforcing the age restrictions on content...If you want your kid to be able to play it, you can still buy it for 'em, but they shouldn't be able to pick it up unsupervised. This isn't to say this law was in any way justified. Utter shit would be a better word for it. Bu
Enforcable? (Score:3, Interesting)
I'm wondering how they were planning to enforce this. Obviously they can't rely on store clerks to ask for ID, since they were considering putting this law into effect in the first place. So what then? Have a cop watch the checkout lines? Oh, I know.....search warrants for all residences with children 17 or younger!
I'm thinking this is just another scare tactic. Another "this could happen to you!" situation to worry about, in the hopes that it'll stop kids from trying to buy/rent games that they shouldn't be.
Personally, I think a better solution would be to fine the store when this happens.
Re:Enforcable? (Score:3, Insightful)
[1] if you understood that, I'm probably not talking about you.
Won't someone please (Score:3, Funny)
Couldn't resist.
Protecting the children? (Score:5, Interesting)
I don't necessarily agree that video games are harmful to all children. However, I would agree that they can, somewhat, de-sensitize them. And, I would agree that certain children may be negatively influenced by some games. Granted, those children generally have a host of other behavioural issues that should have been red flagged long before video games really get into the picture.
Regardless of whether or not the games will "hurt" the children, however, they have been rated for adults. Because of this, I personally believe that retailers should be encouraged to prevent the sale of these games to minors unless an adult is present. Encouraged as in the guidelines given to them by the ESRB, not fines and laws. These guidelines are, of course, a deterant, and not something that will prevent a child from ever getting their hands on the game. That part is up to the parent.
As a parent, (yes, I'm a geek AND I got the girl.. I'm still trying to figure out how the hell that happened myself) I know what limits my children have. I pay attention to what they watch, read, play, and even who they hang out with. I'm not a dictator by any means, but I do attempt to influence what my children say and do without forcing my opinions on them. They are free to make their own decisions, within reasonable limits. I do not allow my children to play games such as GTA. I do, however, allow my older son (12) to play games such as Unreal Tournament, 007, and some of the M-rated racing games. Of course, I checked them out beforehand. And I have yet to see him driving down the street, with a BFG, taking out the neighbors.
I find it disheartening that our society seems so hell bent on not only allowing, but encouraging the government to set forth laws to regulate how I raise my children. I'm aware that there are parents out there who are completely useless and should never have been allowed to reproduce, but laws like this infringe on my rights as a parent. I should be able to raise my child as I see fit.
I think laws like this should be beaten down, but I think reasonable guidelines should be put in place. And I definitely don't like the free speach flag being waved around as an excuse for stuff like this.
Re:Protecting the children? (Score:2)
What makes you think this law tried to do that? If this law weren't struck down, then you would still be free to let your kids play violent games, it's just that you'd have to buy them for them. The choice would still be yours, not the government's.
Re:Protecting the children? (Score:2)
Rated by whom? Hint: Not who you think, but rather, by people with a vested financial interest in the outcome of the ratings. People who charge fees to game manufacturers for the rating, and take suggestions from those same manufacturers as to what the ratings should be.
However, I would agree that they can, somewhat, de-sensitize them.
There is zero evidence whatsoever to support this FUD.
And, I would ag
Minor Trouble (Score:2, Interesting)
Ie, Minnesota lawmakers decided to target minors with their unconstitutional law because minors (ie, their parents) have a harder time fighting back. It's times like this I wish lawmakers could be brought up on treason charges for intention
Free Speech? (Score:2)
I agree that individual stores should have the right to refuse to sell whatever they want to minors: it's their call... but it's not right to have stuff be mandatory unavailable to minors under threat of breaking the law.
You first (Score:4, Insightful)
"Failure to prove harm?" (Score:5, Interesting)
As a society (in the US anyway) we almost 'instinctively' assume that sexually explicit material is unsuitable for children to view. No one ever asks why or asks for proof of its danger.
And here we have another form of entertainment that many intuitively feel is a danger to children, and now a judge is asking for proof?
I hold that depictions of sex are not harmful to children any more than graphical violence is. Why are the two treated so differently? Is it our religious social core?
Re: "Failure to prove harm?" (Score:3, Insightful)
That's almost precisely the comment I was going to make.
First premise: Look at Japan. More to the point, look at the prevalence of seijin manga in Japan. Here's a culture that's apparently obsessed with violent rape fantasy, yet their rate of violent crime is significantly lower, per capita than that of the USA. [N.B.: I have no figures to back this up. I could be completely wrong. Nevertheless, my second premise stands.]
Second premise: Boys begin puberty around ten or eleven years of age—aft
Since no one here seems to get it... (Score:2)
All the laws prohibiting kids from doing things are attempting to do the impossible: take away choice. The fact is, once the kid knows it's out there, every minute he/she doesn't go for it is a decision made.
Choice exists no
Luckily, Rosenbaum is a technology savvy judge (Score:3, Interesting)
Mike hatch Vs video games (Score:2, Informative)
Before elections I expect to see more of a fuss on this issue in MN.
Re:I don't get it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Campain 1: Joe Schmo voted to give children access to violent material!
Campain 2: John Doe voted to protect our children.
Now who is going to win in election???? Its not about the protecting the children at all, its a game to win the election pure and simple..
Re:I don't get it. (Score:2)
These lawmakers have to know after repeated rulings of unconstitutionality that this type of law won't stick around.
My post was a responce to this fact. The lawmakers don't CARE if it gets shot down just the media effect of their vote. And they definatly don't want to educate the populus as you speak.
Re:The american system is broken (Score:2)
Re:Problem is.. (Score:2)
Not all parents care about sex or violence around their children. My mother was also an alchy and my father has a bad drug problem. Go figure... at 27 i'm scared to have children. If I do, I couldn't let they around their grandparents!
Re:Problem is.. (Score:2)
Just kidding.
What he said. (Score:2)
Re:whose 1st amendment rights? (Score:2)
Note that, with the repeal of this law, minors still can't buy Mature or Adults-Only video games. Game stores are pretty good, on average, about honoring the ratings. The problem is, as noted, that in all the examples held up of minors getting "scarred" by violent games, it was their parents or another adult related to them that bought the game for them. What law against selling such games to minors, or against minors buying such games, is going to do a thing about that? The only law that'd help is one fini