[RonPeeredob]

This upcoming election year is a BIG one. But, thats not the only controversial thing going down in November. SCOTUS (aka the Supreme Court of the United States) has an argument coming to their door that could change the way that we see and play video games as we know it.

Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Associations/Entertainment Software Association

Part 1 of the info on this argument
Part 2
Part 3
Part 4
Sessler's Soapbox: Gaming is not a crime

So I ask thee, the humble YF forum debator, do you agree with the Terminator in his stance for banning sales of violent video games to minors, or do you agree with the gamers/ESRB/ESA in stating that these games are freedom of speech and deserve to be protected under the First Amendment?

Just so you know, I will be moderating this argument.

[Eugen80]

There are restrictions on videos minors can watch in theatres, and ratings on television shows.

There are restrictions on renting/buying those same videos from vendors.

The fact is that with video games, not only can minors watch the same unscrupulous content in videos, but they can control and shape the flow of the events which occur.

Prohibiting the sale of explicit-rated video games makes sense, in so far as censorship of content for minors makes sense.

[F1grandprix]

I have no prob with restrictions. Otherwise we have kids playing games where prostitutes are raped and then killed. *GTA* Though I doubt the restrictions are going to stop anyone.

[TorryJens]

Heres the underlying factor though, IF this bill comes to pass and IF they start actually cracking down, then we could end up losing M rated games off the store bought market all together.

I forgot to add this to the op, but Ill add it now.

http://g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/70...t-a-Crime.html

[replicaypu]

Lacking bloodlust, I have no problems with that.

[MilenaMKB]

What the **** are we? Australia? IIRC, they don't even sell M rated games in stores.

It's not a 16 year olds fault that some 11 year old kids parents aren't responsible enough to read the back of a video game box and see the following "Sexual Content, Drug Use, Nudity, Excessive Violence". Crack down on bad parenting.

Giving GTA to an 8 year old, bad. Giving GTA to a 15/16 year old, not so bad. They see it all the time and much worse also. All these "studies" that find a correlation between violent video games and violent crimes does not justify anything. It's correlated, not a cause.

If we outlaw selling rated M games to minors expect Call of Duty to have less blood, no swearing, and using water guns. Game develops will have no choice but to make their game fit in the Rated T bracket in order to ensure their game sells and the largest market of video gamers can get their hands on them. In the end, it is everyone who suffers, especially the 18+ market with watered down games with ****ty storylines, games not achieving their full potential (because a lack of market means a lack of profit which means a lack of employees), and having less people to play with.

We should be able to see, hear, and say what we want regardless of age. At the age of 13, it is reasonable to say that you know what you want to play. I remember playing Prince of Persia at the age of 12, and if I couldn't play the sequel which was rated M, I would be fuming.

If we decide to outlaw it, whats next? The internet being restricted to anyone 18-? We all know the Internet is where kids are exposed to the most amount of violence, swearing, and sexual content because everyone seems to be born on January 1st 18 years ago. In comparison what kids see on the news and on the internet is far worse than video games.

[Rategbee]

i agree pawn. its the parents fault for not reading the game.
If we decide to outlaw it, whats next? The internet being restricted to anyone 18-? We all know the Internet is where kids are exposed to the most amount of violence, swearing, and sexual content because everyone seems to be born on January 1st 18 years ago. In comparison what kids see on the news and on the internet is far worse than video games. well i read that there trying to censor the internet somehow. i didnt even know that was possible.

[irresseni]

Sadly, I too have to agree with Pawn(not that he didn't make a good point, because he did, I just don't want to sound like I'm parroting whoever else agrees with him). It's mostly the fact that the parents nowadays are too open minded and too young to understand that maybe letting a 10 year old play Halo Reach isn't exactly the best way to go when it comes to parenting, while the video games may be violent and bloody and filled with bad language and sexual content, it all comes down to how strict the parents are on what they want their children playing, and you rarely see that anymore because the will of the parents are growing weaker and weaker as they spoil their children which, in turn, weakens the parents even further...it's a vicious cycle if no one caught that.

[cingularring]

There are restrictions on videos minors can watch in theatres, and ratings on television shows.

There are restrictions on renting/buying those same videos from vendors.

The fact is that with video games, not only can minors watch the same unscrupulous content in videos, but they can control and shape the flow of the events which occur.

Prohibiting the sale of explicit-rated video games makes sense, in so far as censorship of content for minors makes sense.

All forms of entertainment are regulated by independent bodies, in the case of video games, the ESRB. What Schwarzenegger wants to do is have the government censor video games. The law is confused, unclear, and down right dirty.

This happened to comic books many a blue moon ago, and look at that medium now. It's a joke, making next to no artistic progress because they were stuck making childrens comics.

I'd also like to point out that anyone found selling M rated games to a minor is subject to a several thousand dollar fine, and being blacklisted by publishers.