Should violent video games be regulated by the state or by parents?

They do it's called the ESRB rating. Parents are just to lazy or just don't care to follow it.

There is no penalty for stores who sell "m" games to minors. Yes, there is a rating system, but it is not really regulated. Games like this Rapelay may not be here, but others like "Grand Theft Auto" are, which also awards points for violence, rape, prostitution, etc.

This is a topic I have railed about for years. I don't see why this even has to be a SC issue. We regulate the sale of music and movies to minors, why not video games?

Actually we don't, and that's the issue. There is no state or federal law against selling mature music or R-rated movie tickets to minors. None whatsoever. The theaters are a self-governing body, and sometimes impose fines on particular locations that have done so, but no state or federal mandate exists. Similarly, some larger game retail chains keep close watch on their independent stores and impose penalties if they sell M-rated games. The video game market is already precisely as regulated as the movie market.

So why do it for video games? It's unconstitutional.

Helllooo. They've been watching/playing rape

By all means, name one game rated by the ESRB and released to retail chains in the United States that has them "playing rape." Just one.

but others like "Grand Theft Auto" are, which also awards points for violence, rape

Technically, GTA doesn't award "points" for anything. But yes there is violence, and yes, prostitution boosts your health. But there is no rape present in the game. None whatsoever. Not even a little bit.

"Grand Theft Auto" are, which also awards points for violence, rape, prostitution, etc.

Then I've been playing the wrong Grand Theft Auto games because I've never been rewarded points for rape. I've never even found rape in a Grand Theft Auto game. And last I checked you actually lose money when visiting a lady of the night.

There is no penalty for stores who sell "m" games to minors. Yes, there is a rating system, but it is not really regulated.

Last I checked it was monitered by both the Federal government and watch dog groups on compliance by the stores. Heck I think the last it was checked video games came out better than any other media out on compliance. Lets see most gaming consoles (the apple platforms seem to be the hold out) have built in parental controls based on ESRB ratings. No platform holder will let Adult only games even be sold on their consoles.

Even most big box stores have policies in place to punish employees if they knowingly sell M rated games to minors.

Violence like screwing a prostitute and then beating her instead of paying her...

The fact that you would even defend a game like this is disturbing.

Violence like screwing a prostitute and then beating her instead of paying her...

The fact that you would even defend a game like this is disturbing.

The fact of the matter is that is your choice in the game. Sandbox games are popular because you can do what you want to do, and some of those thing aren't good at all. To be honest, I'd be more concerned with people finding new ways to torture Sims instead of the GTA thing.

Do you think that all movies being produced now should not have rape as a plot point in them?

say what you want but actually violence has dropped tremendously with the rise of 1st person shooters and such.

it is an unscientific correlation but the idea that games like this help testosterone filled males, let off steam simular to a car covered with tired can let a rhino let off steam is worth investigating WITHOUT EMOTIONS TO CLOUD THE ISSUE.

Violence like screwing a prostitute and then beating her instead of paying her...

Yes, as Justin alluded to, that's due to the sandbox nature of the games. The point is to give the player a set of tools and then give them an open world to explore. Sometimes that allows players to do some pretty ethically terrible things. The problem is when you conflate the act of virtually beating a prostitute in a sandbox game with the act of actually doing it. No one is defending the act, just the portrayal.

The fact that you would even defend a game like this is disturbing.

The fact that you think either 1. expression should be censored or 2. this is a recent phenomenon is rather disturbing.

So read the Iliad. No seriously go read it. Classic of Western Literature. It also contains more gruesome and detailed violence and rape than any video game could hope to portray.

but others like "Grand Theft Auto" are

Out of curiosity, have you played any of the GTA games? No? Then you don't know what you're talking about.

We regulate the sale of music and movies to minors, why not video games?

Except the government doesn't regulate either. The regulation of movie ratings is done by the MPAA, music by the RIAA (if memory serves). ESRB does the rating for video games.

I suggest you read Grand Theft Childhood for a good and balanced look at game violence, and how many of the studies suggesting a causal link are scientifically flawed.

Wow! Now I guess we know who chooses to beat the prostitutes in their sandbox games...

I think anything that helps desensitize children to violence contributes to some of the things we are seeing played out in r/l. In games where these violent acts are actually rewarded it is particularly sickening.

Honestly, how is it different than a rated R movie? Because it's interactive? Well then does the realism of the movie trump the game?

All mediums at one point have been demonized for the corruption of youth. Movies, books, music, comic books, etc etc. A video game is different only in the fact that its interactive yes, but it also is not as realistically depicted as movie are.

Remember when that kid hurt himself recreating Jackass? Or remember when that other kid burned himself imitating Beavis and Butthead? What was the common denominator there? Do you think all would be forgiven if Grand Theft Auto had a "Warning, this game is not real life. Don't try this stuff or you'll end up dead or imprisoned"?

I think anything that helps desensitize children to violence contributes to some of the things we are seeing played out in r/l.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree. I would, however, say that it always has been and still remains to be the parents' responsibility to gauge when a child is ready to differentiate between fantasy and reality.

When I was growing up, I played video games. When games like Mortal Kombat hit, my parents were wary, talked to me, and made sure I was ready to see that kind of animated violence. My parents bought me Turok, an M-rated game, for my 15th birthday (if I recall). M ratings are a guideline meaning 17 or older, but they felt confident that I was ready.

Parents are ultimately responsible for what their kids watch and play and read. The state shouldn't be involved, and fortunately many states have already realized this and struck down similar laws as unconstitutional.

Studies also show that the same areas of the brain are used in video games as are affected with drug use and other addictive behaviors. Studies have also shown that these addictive centers make it hard for children and susceptible adults to stop playing.

Pretty much any enjoyable activity releases endorphins. If you're referring to the study I think you are, though, Dr. Cheryl Olsen pretty well debunked the methodology as soon as the study was released.

Studies have also shown that the brain cannot distinguish between simulated actions and real actions. So whatever is done on a video game, the brain records it exactly as it would if the same action was done in real life.

Well gee, if that's the case we should start military recruiting among players of Modern Warfare. After all, they know exactly how to engage in combat situations now, right? I'm sure they're fully equipped and need no basic training whatsoever.

Given all of this, there is no logic in the argument that video games do not affect our brains or that the brains of minors would not be affected more.

Given your uncited studies with indefensible reasoning? I think there might still be a question or two.

lol banning it just makes it more attractive. if you actually tried to play the game you would first think it was the stupidest thing you have every laid your hands on and wonder how long even the most bored and most horney human could play the thing.

The second thing you would notice.. is it really doesnt simulate anything resembling real rape.

Not saying it isnt sick and perverted.. they are "raping" a girl.. sorta.. in text he does say mean things to her and gets her to get an abortion. but you might want to check out some of the anime and manga kids look at today.

The game is really tame compared to the description and yeah i checked it out cause i wanted to see reality and not what i was told. And really.. eh wasnt impressed or that offended.. it was more stupid than anything else.

Most retailers won't sell to kids, but as far as R-rated movies that rating is not given by the government, it's given by a governing board of people at the MPAA. If the government isn't the body giving the ratings, then why would they enforce ratings given by a non-governmental body?

It's about education. You don't show your kids Predator, just like you don't let them play GTA.

I agree that the game "Rapelay" should be banned

Why? You're arguing for government censorship of free speech, which should never be done lightly.

it was more stupid than anything else.

Those are H-games for you. Japan makes most all of them and they usually stay in Japan. Hell, Illusion the developer that made Rapelay doesn't sell their products outside of it.

And that is corollary how? Who do video games exploit?

And that is corollary how? Who do video games exploit?

The frail sensibilities of the easily offended.

(posting in bold so my point is not missed) Rapelay is a terrible game and I would never let a child I'm responsible for buy or play it. That's the duty of the parent. Not the government. As for people who are mature enough to handle games with violence and such (GTA, MGS, etc), why should we be deprived of entertainment simply because some parents are too lazy to do their jobs?

And last I checked, if violent video games had such an affect on children, then why aren't we seeing car theft by 8-year-olds, school shootings every half-hour, or anything else? I've played just about every game the media has demonized over the years (some before I was 18) and I've never raised a hand in anger against anyone. Why? Because my parents let me experience such games when I was ready for it.

These days where all the video game consoles have parental controls that let you lock-out certain games, and the video game industry has a phenomenal record for checking IDs (better than music, movie or theaters by far), there's no excuse for a parent not keeping certain games out of their kid's life.

Human rights--women's rights--are being denied

Really? How, and which ones?

Really? How, and which ones?

I'm curious about this too.

And last I checked, if violent video games had such an affect on children, then why aren't we seeing car theft by 8-year-olds, school shootings every half-hour, or anything else?

interesting thing arad, despite the overwhelming surge in video game sales, the US crime rate has dropped to levels unseen since the 1960's. "video game" violence is sensationalism...nothing more.

it's akin to "virutal girlfriend" games.
simulated rape where the girl enjoys it.. is a huge genre in japan. And I really mean Huge.
even with that said.

this was totally designed to get notice in the media.. just like that stupid ass assassinate JFK game.

It's the lamest shooter in the history of gaming. But it got the media riled up. It got people wanting to ban it, so it got people wanting to buy it to see why other people wanted to deny them the chance to see it. and everyone of them.. even the most rabid JFK hater.. probably regret ed buying that game.

it's 2livecrew in digital form. they make money by offending you.

best thing you could ever do.. IS IGNORE THEM

Yeah, I know Joules, but I still find it disgusting to glamourize rape. If they want sex and score game, there's "Leisure Suit Larry."

If there are no limits to far how the games will go, then why not push the buttons all the way? We can have the "Cut Open the Baby From The 8 Month Pregnant Woman Before You Get Caught" or "How To bomb and/Assassinate The Prez and/or your boss in 'Beat The Clock.' " That just be for starters so why not? They can push the buttons on rape, let's glamorize child abuse and murder too for money.

Personally, I find all this glamorization of heinous stuff disgusting.

"How To bomb and/Assassinate The Prez and/or your boss in 'Beat The Clock.' "

Technically they've already done this one... In Team Fortress Classic, there was a game mode called VIP. One team consists of snipers while the other team consists of heavies, and soldiers, as well as one player taking on the role of 'Prez.' The snipers has to kill the Prez before he reaches the end of the level, while the soldiers have to defend him. The 'Prez' doesn't look like any recognizable president i know, with a gray moustache, and thinning white hair in a combover.

The Hitman series has scenarios where you can plant bombs to eliminate your targets. In one such scenario, I had to kill a corrupt army officer and the man bribing him. I chose the sneakiest way I could think of (and there were -many- ways to execute the mission). I snuck through the sewers and planted a bomb under the bribery man's car, then exited the sewer on the other side of the map and sniped the corrupt officer from across the park. The other man panicked and fled to his car while the officer's bodyguards ran towards the shot. He turns his car on, and blammo. By the time the guards know what's going on, I've escaped. One bullet, one bomb, zero alerts. Perfect score.

Regardless, you have every right to be offended, just like a would-be programmer has every right to make it, and for a consumer to buy it. Don't like it? Don't buy it and don't let your kids play it.

Very well, but where does that line get drawn? Where does it end? How about a game where see how many minorities and/ or people of different religions that can be killed on video game and as "practice"? See how many Muslims and Jews i.e. can be killed and the more gruesome the method, the more points you rack up. You get to be the High Wizard if you get the highest number in the most gruesome method!

And I don't buy nor do I have kids nor want them, so don't assume. Adults can decide for themselves, can kids? Even with govt. restrictions, kids will still find a way to play it. The more restricted it is, the more they will want to play it and will they understand it's just a "game?" Maybe, and maybe not.

Very well, but where does that line get drawn? Where does it end? How about a game where see how many minorities and/ or people of different religions that can be killed on video game and as "practice"?

That sounds like a pretty ethically terrible game, but as an artistic work it has every right to exist. One can disagree with the message in a movie, book, TV show, piece of music, or video game, without wanting to silence it.

Very well, but where does that line get drawn? Where does it end? How about a game where see how many minorities and/ or people of different religions that can be killed on video game and as "practice"? See how many Muslims and Jews i.e. can be killed and the more gruesome the method, the more points you rack up. You get to be the High Wizard if you get the highest number in the most gruesome method!

Once again, you've every right to be offended and rankled, just like programmers have every right to market a product that people will buy.

And I don't buy nor do I have kids nor want them, so don't assume. Adults can decide for themselves, can kids? Even with govt. restrictions, kids will still find a way to play it. The more restricted it is, the more they will want to play it and will they understand it's just a "game?" Maybe, and maybe not.

Adults can decide for themselves, and it should be the parents who decide for their children what they should see until the parents decide they're mature enough, not the government. If a parent doesn't want to act like a parent then perhaps they should have used contraception.

Edit: Also, considering every current generation console has parental controls, the 'I can't be there all the time' excuse is kinda debunked.

You are debating freedom of being able to sell whatever a person wants as long as there is a consumer that wants to buy. Should there be a restriction on that? FYI, adults that buy porn cannot just buy porn, if it's pedophile in nature, they can get arrested.

Is there an absolute freedom to be able to market whatever is available just because there's a consumer? Really? Are you sure? If there's a video game that portrays child sex abuse and there are hundreds and hundreds of men with pedophile "habits" that buy it in a heartbeat, should it be marketed? Why not? There are consumers that pay for it so why should the law restrict it? Should the almighty dollar be the king in this every time?

And by absolute, I mean absolute.

Yes, I get offended because of the argument, "If there's a market regardless of what it is, then the item should be sold". I disagree, it depends on what that item is. Not everything is absolute, not even the market.

If "RapePlay" and other games are a-ok to sell, then by that logic, so should games and other items regarding child sex abuse be also available since if there's a consumer, then there should be a marketer. You can't pick and choose which ones are ok, and are not. If one thing that is horrendous is ok, then it should be all ok since the market rules if that's the only requirement.

Second FYI, as kids grow, parents can't be there all the time, so your edit is not debunking anything. Kids will play it their friends house. You think they'll tell their parents? Wrong. I'll bet they won't.

If "RapePlay" and other games are a-ok to sell, then by that logic, so should games and other items regarding child sex abuse be also available since if there's a consumer, then there should be a marketer.

This isn't about the market. This is about whether the government should regulate or ban material. Since video game regulations already exist, this is a moot point.

Since no one's right have been violated by the creation of this, adults should be allowed to purchase it, yes.

You are debating freedom of being able to sell whatever a person wants as long as there is a consumer that wants to buy.

Actually no. We're debating the freedom to create and sell as freedom of expression, which the Federal and State courts have upheld time and time again. GamePolitics has a pretty good outline of the argument from EMA public relations VP Sean Bersell:

The lower court opinions in this case, just followed long-standing Supreme Court precedence, that found that these kinds of restrictions are unconstitutional as a violation of the First Amendment. They are perfectly in accord with the Constitution.

This is a content-based restriction. Content-based restrictions are presumptively invalid under the First Amendment.

...

Sexual content is a unique area of the law. An exception to the First Amendment has been carved out for obscene material or for material that’s obscene for minors. Some material that may be protected by the First Amendment is not permissible for minors. If it’s patently offensive to what the community thinks is appropriate for minors… all sexual thresholds… The court has consistently said that obscenity law is restricted to sex.

What this law tries to do is to cab an obscenity law on to violence and to create a sort of violence as obscenity law. And the courts have been consistent that obscenity law is for sexual expression only and not for other types of expression like violence.

This is a first amendment issue -- always has been.

It is because the regulation will affect that market; the biggest gamers are kids and young men.

Should adults be allowed to purchase a child sex abuse game? It's not legal, not even graphic drawings depicting such.

First amendment issue? How so? Is freedom of expression is absolute? How so? Since when?

No one has yet mentioned the rights kids have. Very interesting.....

Probably none. They don't pay taxes after all..

the biggest gamers are kids and young men.

The average gamer is actually in their early 30s.

No one has yet mentioned the rights kids have.

Because with regards to this subject they don't have any. Most rights that minors have relate to confidentiality and privacy, not a right to view any material they want.

Should adults be allowed to purchase a child sex abuse game? It's not legal, not even graphic drawings depicting such.

Check the quote above. A "child sex abuse game" would fall under obscenity law, which is already established. This law attempts to make violence count as "obscenity," which has been ruled unconstitutional multiple times.

Not to mention the ESRB would give such a game an A/O rating or, more likely, refuse to classify it at all. Either one would effectively ban it from store shelves or release on home consoles.

And thanks to the free market, there's little to no incentive to even make such a thing. Games are costly to make, a gamble at retail, and no developer would risk taking a financial bath on a game they know is going to be banned.

We already have steps in place to prevent such things. Trying to cite such a ludicrous example to justify an unconstitutional law simply doesn't hold up to logical scrutiny.

First amendment issue? How so? Is freedom of expression is absolute? How so? Since when?

Well, in pretty much the exact way I outline above with the quote. The quote doesn't say that freedom of speech is absolute, but it does point out why exactly this law is unconstitutional. It claims violence as obscenity, which has been struck down at the Federal level in similar cases with different media forms, and at the state level seven times in video game legal cases.

I did see your clause, but I don't think that clause should exist if there is to be complete freedom. It shows that there is no absolute freedom of expression. It leaves to subject what is obscenity and that is subjective not objective.

It's not ludicrous. Just because it's not done here, you really believe it's not done in other countries? Probably has and I wouldn't be surprised.

And a lot of things are not Constitutional before and are now. Maybe because that document is constantly evolving and isn't perfect and has needed amendments throughout the years? Perhaps because people aren't perfect?

It's not "complete freedom," Lilith. Artists can't make things that are threatening, or make overtly sexual content available to minors. Violence doesn't count as obscenity law, and therefore it is protected free speech. That's the problem with this California law.

Which, ironically, makes it doubly irrelevant that the article brings up RapeLay. Even if the game were available in the U.S., it would easily fall under sexual obscenity law, so a law restricting it for violent reasons would be completely unnecessary. To be fair, the California government hasn't itself referenced RapeLay, but it still gets under my skin that the article writer used such a blatant scare tactic.

The Constitution is a living document, but free speech isn't an area we should be budging on. You're basically claiming that the document should protect free speech, except when it doesn't. To reach that goal you're creating an arbitrary exception around a media form you either don't understand or don't like. That's not sound law or sound logic. Video games are just as protected as movies, books, and music. When you start advocating a law that restricts all of those at once, get back to me. I'll still disagree, but at least you'll be ethically consistent.

Steve, you don't understand. The definition of what obscenity and what is violence are subjective! For you maybe it's not violent, for others, yes. The judges interpret the law, but that interpretation has changed a lot throughout different administrations and courts, and the people who do the interpreting are human and that makes it subjective. It is not measurable like a person's height which an objective measure is.

The first amendment does not guarantee absolute expression. I'm claiming that it either protects all completely and no "cherry picking". An obscenity clause means that someone has interpreted as obscene- it's subjective and shouldn't exist if there is complete freedom of expression, should it? That's cherry picking right there. It won't be obscene to all, now would it? It isn't.

For someone that alleges to be ethically consistent, you support an obscenity clause? No consistency there on your part.

Average gamer is in their 30s? Maybe those that don't get dates or aren't married and/or no kids. How would they have time otherwise?

Have fun duking it out, I have real life errands to run. Thanks for the written entertainment. I got some fun out of it.

Loretta, thanks for the seed. =)

The definition of what obscenity and what is violence are subjective!

I'm sorry, but you're missing the point. This California law is seeking to restrict the sale of violent video games to minors. Keep that in mind, because it's important. They are trying to restrict the sale of violent games to minors.

To accomplish this, it's trying to define violence as "obscenity." The SCOTUS has ruled multiple times that violence doesn't qualify under obscenity law. Obscenity law is defined for sex, and only sex. The level of violence doesn't matter, be it a slap in the face or a severed limb. It's not obscene in the eyes of the law. Obscenity law is for sex. Violence doesn't count.

This law tries to mingle the two, and restrict violent content by calling it obscene. The law doesn't work that way, which is why it will fail before the SCOTUS.

There's nothing ethically inconsistent about favoring obscenity law. It's a good idea, when people have a proper understanding of it. It's unfortunate that you don't (or didn't), but that really isn't my problem. I'm saying you are being inconsistent by defending a law that claims obscenity law can be applied to violent content in video games, but not in any other forms of media such as movies.

You are debating freedom of being able to sell whatever a person wants as long as there is a consumer that wants to buy. Should there be a restriction on that? FYI, adults that buy porn cannot just buy porn, if it's pedophile in nature, they can get arrested.

Child porn, unlike this video game, has real people being victimized, which is a crime. The comparison is invalid.

If there's a video game that portrays child sex abuse and there are hundreds and hundreds of men with pedophile "habits" that buy it in a heartbeat, should it be marketed? Why not? There are consumers that pay for it so why should the law restrict it? Should the almighty dollar be the king in this every time?

There currently is a bill in Japan right now that would do just that, making it illegal for depictions of virtual underage people being used in such entertainment. I'm fairly certain (though I often try to consider such things) that pedos consume good ol-fashioned porn made in the states that use actors that are over 18 but claim not to be in the production. Should that be illegal?

And by absolute, I mean absolute.

The only absolute is that there are no absolutes.

If "RapePlay" and other games are a-ok to sell, then by that logic, so should games and other items regarding child sex abuse be also available since if there's a consumer, then there should be a marketer. You can't pick and choose which ones are ok, and are not. If one thing that is horrendous is ok, then it should be all ok since the market rules if that's the only requirement.

Again, don't like it? Don't buy it.

Second FYI, as kids grow, parents can't be there all the time, so your edit is not debunking anything. Kids will play it their friends house. You think they'll tell their parents? Wrong. I'll bet they won't.

So because those parents didn't set parental limits, us legal-age gamers (the average gamer is 35) should pay the price for it? Again, if the parents can't parent, then they should have used contraceptives.

It is because the regulation will affect that market; the biggest gamers are kids and young men.

False! As noted above, the average age is 35, and nearly half are now female.

Should adults be allowed to purchase a child sex abuse game? It's not legal, not even graphic drawings depicting such.

So no depictions of abuse are okay? Golly gee, I guess Forrest Gump's about to be censored. Also, I'd ask your opinions on Elfen Lied, but I suspect you'd not even give the show a chance to develop past the first five minutes.

Average gamer is in their 30s? Maybe those that don't get dates or aren't married and/or no kids. How would they have time otherwise?

My dad (mid 60s) plays video games (Company of Honor). My mom (early 60s) burns time with Ipod games. My sister (late twenties) got her husband (also late twenties) hooked on World of Warcraft. I'm mid twenties myself, and the vast number of my coworkers are married and play games.

So sorry that your attempt to deflect the facts with a veiled insult didn't work.

Average gamer is in their 30s? Maybe those that don't get dates or aren't married and/or no kids. How would they have time otherwise?

Yes, because video games are rather expensive. As it stands young adults who have pay checks are more likely to be gamers than minors who rely on their parents for money.

Average gamer is in their 30s? Maybe those that don't get dates or aren't married and/or no kids. How would they have time otherwise?

The Atari 2600 was released in 1977. A person who grew up gaming is likely to be a gamer still. I'm 28 and I'm a gamer. It says nothing regarding someone's maturity. My old supervisor at Schriever AFB was older than 30 and he was married with two children. He is still a gamer.

Lilith41 made a disparaging remark about adults playing video games. We were rebutting that comment.

And the law is unconstitutional because it restricts only one form of entertainment media (games) and not movies or music. If freedom of speech must be restricted, it's to be restricted evenly across all mediums.

if the game was released in 2006, why did the media start covering it as a controversy in 2009

America's slow. That still doesn't mean this disgusting game should be treated like a fly on the wall.

the game was never on store shelves in the US

That doesn't mean it won't find its way to shelves in the US some how.

America's slow. That still doesn't mean this disgusting game should be treated like a fly on the wall.

It. Was. Never. Available. To. Purchase. In. The. United. States. What are you saying, that we should be the world's smut police? Strangely enough, real-live porn has censored genitalia in Japan, while in the US it isn't. Should Japan be able to dictate to us how we make porn, since that can be uploaded to the internet and viewed by their children?

That doesn't mean it won't find its way to shelves in the US some how.

No, that's EXACTLY what it means. There was zero danger of an obscure 3-year-old hentai title suddenly being translated and put out on shelves at Best Buy. People in the US weren't even aware of this game until CNN made it news.

It. Was. Never. Available. To. Purchase. In. The. United. States.

That. Does. Not. Mean. It. Won't. End. Up. On. Shelves. In. The. U.S.A. Some. How.

That. Does. Not. Mean. It. Won't. End. Up. On. Shelves. In. The. U.S.A. Some. How.

That doesn't, but the ESRB does.

As I pointed out below, the ESRB rates every single game sold in the United States. A game like RapeLay would be guaranteed an Adults Only rating. No console manufacturer will license an A/O game, and most retailers have policies against selling one.

Thank you RNoel for having the most sensible post here. Yes, the game is bad. But ask yourselves this, do you really really want the government telling you what you can and can't do? if you raise your kids properly and instill them with the morals you believe in, than things like this, which I might add are rare occurrences of our "free" society shouldn't be a problem for you and your family.

That. Does. Not. Mean. It. Won't. End. Up. On. Shelves. In. The. U.S.A. Some. How.

Manhunt 2 was rated AO or Adult Oriented because of the graphic nature of things in the game. Due to that many retailers did not purchase the game to sell to customers. That's how the system works. A game like this rape game would have no customer base in brick and mortar stores. It'd then be relegated to online purchases, which we can pretty much agree are much less regulated and much less able to be regulated.

If it's an issue of "think of the children", I'm going to have echo the "it's called parenting" sentiment. You don't take your kid to see Hellraiser because it's rated R, similarly the games system has an even more thorough rating system. You can either do your due diligence as a parent or just let them do whatever they want and possibly be damaged due to it, but don't say because people can do bad things in games that this means we should censor games. If it's ok to censor games, then we should censor everything, and that's not a place anybody should want to go. Be a responsible parent and don't expect the state to help you decide what's right for your kids.

Sometimes government regulation is necessary. Rape should never be glorified or allowed to be glorified or looked at as a game or even involved in a game. It doesn't matter where the game came from. Rape is a serious thing, it's not something that should be taken lightly or dismissed as a joke.

Manhunt 2 was rated AO or Adult Oriented because of the graphic nature of things in the game. Due to that many retailers did not purchase the game to sell to customers.

Actually its "Adults Only" and it never got as far it as being avaible to retailers. When a game is rated AO it cannot be sold on any of the three major platforms (PS3,Xbox 360,Wii). All three companies have policies in place to prevent the releasing of AO games on their systems. When Manhunt 2 recieved the AO rating the developers went back and did some editing. After that it was re-subitted for rating and got a M rating.

lol bull@!$%# like this is used to inflame peoples anger so the government can restrict people all based on an imaginary problem.

I due agree gov regulation is sometimes necessary.
But you are being played.
the game isnt even popular where it is legal and that kind of crap is popular.

and seriously check out some non games.. some manga comics and crap.

And here is the deal... Yeah I checked out the game.. i stole it.. downloaded it online. I would have never ever ever even have heard of the game, had yall not gotten upset. Multiply me by a million and the developers of the game are loving you.

sometimes it IS best to ignore them/

Plus Rockstar took back Manhunt 2 and tweaked it a bit to give it an M rating. Similar to how many major movie studios take back NC-17 movies and make adjustments and cuts to squeak it in at an R. The parallels are endless, really.

Not true. It was available via Amazon.

Not through the publisher of the game. It was being exported by individuals. Amazon was the marketplace for it, but not the seller of it.

Not through the publisher of the game. It was being exported by individuals. Amazon was the marketplace for it, but not the seller of it.

Plus this really doesn't address the question posed in the article. The debate we're having -- or supposed to be having -- is about state regulation of violent games. The proposed legislation would need to rely on the ESRB ratings to impose the fines. Otherwise, it would have to make several new regulatory ratings bodies, one per state, which would be redundant. It's safe to assume that the ESRB solution would be used instead.

RapeLay was never published in the U.S., and never received a rating by the ESRB. A game like RapeLay being sold by exporters over Amazon would not be prevented whatsoever by the proposed law. It's strange that the article even brings it up, seeing as the legislation has absolutely nothing to do with it. Just another scare tactic, I suppose.

I haven't seen the text of the law, but I would imagine that every retailer of any game (and yes, Amazon would have been the retailer) would need a rating, or it could not be sold to California residents.

That already exists. Any game sold by a retailer in the United States requires an ESRB rating. A third-party exporting the game through Amazon is a loophole, but quite frankly the government can't do a thing about it. For all we know the seller is located in Japan.

Which brings me back to my argument: the proposed law would be useless against RapeLay. Bringing it up is a scare tactic, nothing more.

Which brings me back to my argument: the proposed law would be useless against RapeLay. Bringing it up is a scare tactic, nothing more.

Precisely.

As I walk the increasingly mean streets of the USA I do not discount the effects of violent video games and watch those who are in the age range to play those games very, very carefully, as they are quite capable of killing without remorse, and all too often do so, to the amazement of the now deceased victims who were shocked that "some kid" would actually kill them.

Whew, I'm sure glad violence never existed in the US before video games were invented.

Actually, if you look at statistical analysis of youth violence and the popularity of video games, instances of youth violence have been going steadily down.

So let me ask you a question.

When Super Mario Bros. came out was there a rash of turtle stompings?

How can you say that video games are the medium in which this is most likely to occur when pretty much all consumable media in the US deals with violence less stringently than sex? If you watch the news you'll hear about people getting hurt. Watch a movie and you'll see people getting hurt. Read a book, a comic, etc etc. The only difference is the medium, and unless you're willing to impose across everything then you've got your issues mixed up.

lol want some crazy violence.. read the bible.. men forcible circumcised at 30... shudder.

But yeah i am glad so many people are willing to legislate based on evidence and not let the issue get clouded with feelings.

how many of yall know a kid with this game? a friend of a friend? how many of yall know someone with GTA?

My son and I play GTA all the time. We have all of them except the last one. . .waiting to buy it used LOL!! According to the guy at Game Stop, it has a Western theme. . .we are looking forward to it.

They will not let my son buy an 'M' rated game without an adult. I know because he had his own money and I took him in the store. He had to come back out and get me to get the game he wanted (one of the GTA's). I was kinda surprised that they were that diligent. . .

The extensive research is not mere speculation, nor mere opinion, but fact based information.

Anecdotal "it doesn't happen" type stories are nice successes to hear about, but the peer reviewed and accepted studies are far more reliable studies and facts about population behavior than a few anecdotal stories.

Like high blood pressure, one can ignore it for a long time due to no apparent "symptoms", but it exists, and in the long run, is every damaging.

Please provide studies that show this.

It's not studies, it's simple statistics.

Sales of video games have more than quadrupled from 1995-2008, while the arrest rate for juvenile murders fell 71.9% and the arrest rate for all juvenile violent crimes declined 49.3% in this same period.

Like I said, if games are contributing to real-life violent crime, it's certainly not bearing out in the statistics. Your source itself doesn't provide any numerical data, just uses the word "proof" without bothering to explain why. It also has the man behind the study claiming...

“If a given child has no other risk factors for becoming aggressive, then playing a violent video game for a few hours a week is not going to turn them into a school shooter,” Anderson said.

Not to mention all of this is irrelevant to the major point: state restrictions on games would violate free speech, and treat one form of media differently from every other form of media. It's been ruled unconstitutional time and time again. I look forward to the Supreme Court ruling the same way so that these silly cases will finally stop.

Common sense is all that's needed to realize that exposing incompletely mature human beings to interactive "games" involving various felonies to include at least assault and rape is going to influence attitudes and to some extent also behaviour.

There is a reason why pre-adult experience is dictated by parents - and parents have the final say on these matters. If the parents want control over said material, then the government is to back them up, get the products labeled and sold accordingly, and otherwise but out.

The "state/government" has a conflict of interest in this matter as it itself uses violent interactive video with graphic depictions of human suffering and carnage to desensitise and thus prepare human beings for battle against other human beings. I therefore am NOT surprised that it isn't necessarily sharing this data, as it would raise questions that the corrupt government would rather not have raised.

I do not sell, own, or advertise, or work for anyone that does, any violent interactive video games and therefore do NOT have a conflict of interest in this matter. My interest is in the best interests of US society. Others who do work, sell, or somehow profit from violent interactive video games are asked to reveal said bias/prejudices, so that we all may better understand why any such poster might be advocating something which is beyond any shadow of a doubt dangerous, and NOT in the best interests of US society.

The law has been settled, Loretta, it's being appealed. And seeing as these types of laws keep cropping up in various states and being struck down, it makes sense for the SCOTUS to agree to hear it just so there's a final word. Right now state taxpayer dollars are being wasted at a pretty constant clip, despite precedent being established.

and NOT in the best interests of US society.

Tobacco and alcohol existing aren't in the best interest of US society either, yet they are perfectly legal to discerning adults.

The fact that you think something is good or not is irrelevant, it is about the power of government.

A lot of things aren't in the best interest of any society but why then have laws? If I want to express myself by doing anything I want regardless of who gets it, why should there be torts at all? Isn't that the government on part of the individual? Then whatever anyone wants to do should be allowed regardless of what it is. Couldn't that be seen as freedom of expression?

You already have rights, the one the constitution gives you. The government is there to protect those, and passing off moral judgments to the rest of society is not one of them.

But the government already passes moral judgments on what is right on the rest of society as is.

I could go shoot an obnoxious neighbor and that's what I feel like doing, but US society deems that immoral and makes it a felony so I can't just kill someone.

I could go shoot an obnoxious neighbor and that's what I feel like doing, but US society deems that immoral and makes it a felony so I can't just kill someone.

Because you're killing someone else.

Tell me, who's dying when I smash criminals in a super-hero game? Who's rights am I violating?

Under your logic, Loretta, every SCOTUS case would be overturned. You're trying to claim that SCOTUS only hears cases when they've not been "settled," which is your shorthand for trying to paint SCOTUS as disagreeing with this decision. If that were true, they would have a 100% overturn rate. After all, if they only hear cases that aren't settled, why would they uphold any cases that come to them? It's a ludicrous assertion to make.

This case was settled at the state level, and it could have stayed there (like it did for the other six states). But the California government appealed it. The job of the Supreme Court is to hear appealed cases. On an extremely technical level, they haven't ever heard a case regarding restricting the sale of violent games to minors. Out of the seven states that have attempted such legislation (and failed), California is the first to have appealed. So, logically, this is their first chance to weigh in on the topic and establish precedent at the highest level.

However, precedent is already established in a broader sense. Media is a protected form of free speech, and violence doesn't fall under the realm of obscenity law. If they uphold California's law, they will be doing a complete 180 from all previous rulings on obscenity law. That's not a slight deviation or changing with the times, it's a flat contradiction of every established legal precedent. If you want to bury your head in the sand and hope it goes the way you wish, that's fine. Just prepare to be disappointed.

Then they shouldn't be parents should they?

If you don't want to take the time and energy to raise your kids, you shouldn't be a parent. If the state regulates it things are not going to change, idiot parents not caring for their kids will still buy games for them. Don't put the onus of caring for kids on the state, the state doesn't change diapers, so why should they regulate what content you see.

It's called parenting. If they're allergic to it, then call Child Protection Services and get 'em to responsible adults.

hmmm .. The state should regulate this the same as porn, movie ratings, or even equal to car seats or or or ....and yes in your Polly Anna world all parents would be fit. Fact is they are not, on the one hand you do not want the state restricting this sort of thing, but at the same time you would have the state remove what would be 10s of millions of children.

As it has been stated before

The state should regulate this the same as porn

So Donkey Kong should be rated the same way porn does?

movie ratings

Not regulated at the state level, they're evaluated by the MPAA. Check out the documentary "This film is not yet rated".

or even equal to car seats

I cannot think that they're even on the same level safety-wise.

or or or ....and yes in your Polly Anna world all parents would be fit. Fact is they are not, on the one hand you do not want the state restricting this sort of thing, but at the same time you would have the state remove what would be 10s of millions of children.

Okay then, fine the parents for child endangerment. Make them take mandatory classes at their expense. In my "Pollyanna" world all parents are not fit, but if you can do the deed then you can reap the consequences for being a crappy parent too. How hard is it to read this, seriously?

http://uhaweb.hartford.edu/MCAPPIELL/images/ESRB_ratings.gif

If a parent can't use this simple tool to figure out what is and isn't appropriate for their kid, what's to say that they'll be able to figure out how to make baby formula? The ESRB ratings give you more feedback then the MPAA does regarding the content of the game, so should the state now regulate the film industry? See if that'll happen, I'm banking it won't because of the film industry's corporate lobbyist arm. If you can't apply it across the board, then it's not applicable.

JustinPM, we can disagree ...thanks for your additions, I will stand by my statements.

I have no problem with that.

Again, it's called educating your kids and taking an interest in their welfare. The onus should be on the retailer, not the state. As concerned parents you can organize and provide an ultimatum to the store that either they will enforce the ratings or you'll take your business elsewhere. As Steve said earlier, it's just the newest demonized medium. As terrible as a rape simulator is, you can bet that there is a movie that makes that look tame. So unless you're willing to say all of the mediums need to have state intervention, it isn't going to go anywhere to single one out as the bad one.

As far as your abscence in a bad game's purchase, all of the current consoles have parental locks. Windows Vista and 7 have parental locks as well. You know they can watch just as much bad stuff on the Internet while you're not around as well, right? Do you want to regulate the Internet as well?

So you want to pretend that, as a teen, you did everything according to what your parents taught you?

I didn't drink, didn't smoke. I had no cause to try and sneak anything behind my parents' backs. They loved me and they were involved in my upbringing. I certainly had watched some more violent movies toward my teenage years, but then again that's basically what was on TV anyway. My parents taught me that life has consequences and that alone is a lesson that too many kids don't learn. Education is the key, sheltering them is just about as effective as abstinence only sex education.

Really? I doubt even the very best of teens does that.

Teens make mistakes, that's pretty much what they're here for. So the question becomes "Do we make regulations for them so that they never get hurt or do we mitigate their risk just like everyone elses?" Should every car that a teenager drives be limited to 55 miles an hour as well? Teens need to be taught that actions have consequences, and that lesson should come from parents, not the state. Isn't this the very idea of the nanny state? Guns for everyone, games for some?

Besides, I get real tired of the "parents today are irresponsible" argument.

It wouldn't be said as much if it weren't true. From parents not feeding their kids due to their unwillingness to pray, to parents throwing children onto overpasses it's just as prevalent in the media as video games are. Children today have unprecedented access to media that they did not have before. When I was a kid the Internet as a marketplace didn't exist. So instead of keeping current with how to deal with their kids and these new mediums the parents then throw their hands up and say that it's the government's fault for not keeping them safe. Teach your children that fire burns and death is permanent. If you can't be bothered to teach your children life lessons why should the state?

If that were true, no kid would be going to school or obeying the laws, etc.

That is far too simplistic a viewpoint to hold. A little bit of a void of parenting does not lead to social disorder, but it does lead to some things. A teen can still go to school and disobey laws and vice versa. This is not a two dimensional issue.

Since most kids do, then most parents are doing their job.

So if a kid goes to school, obeys the laws, and eats nothing but Fritos, Hot Pockets and drinks Mountain Dew all the time are the parents doing their jobs as well? Things are not that simple and being a parent means being prepared for more than shuttling your children to school and making sure that they're not insane idiots.

Even with the kids whose parents aren't doing their job, then I still don't want them to be the prey of those who want to market immoral games. They don't deserve that just because their parents aren't on top of the situation.

As I've stated before, this crusade should've started a long time ago then. Society's ills are not caused alone by video games, to believe that would be horribly obtuse. You'll need an entire organization to monitor everything in order to curb what you would want to do. Life isn't lived in a vacuum, and no one should regulate it to provide that vacuum. Educate yourself and set limits for your child. Don't depend on the state to do that for you.

Should we do away with all the other laws that protect our children?

Name another law that violates an entertainment medium's first amendment rights, and I'll say yes, we should do away with it. The problem is you can't cite one, because they don't exist. You're suggesting we treat video games as an entertainment pariah and apply standards to it outside those of other forms of entertainment and our own Constitution.

So you think that protecting children is less important than the gaming industry's right to make immense profits?

So you think the rights afforded to us by the Constitution are less important than unproven, unsubstantiated, biased studies that show no causal link and contradict a decreasing trend in youth violent crime?

Nice strawman.

I'm trying to have a mature discussion about Constitutional rights to free speech, legal precedent in entertainment mediums, and parental responsibility. You seem more content to fling shrill rhetoric about protecting children and child pornography. I keep trying to engage you on the actual question addressed by your title (i.e. state-regulation) and you keep avoiding it. I keep asking what would justify an unconstitutional law that makes video games an entertainment pariah, arbitrarily "worse" than torture porn movies like Saw, and you just resort to the same silly strawmen games.

Let me know when you want to deal with this issue like an adult.

I would find it inconsistent for someone to advocate for other laws that protect children and then oppose a law that protects children from harm due to exposure to any media, including video games.

So why should games be state regulated and not comic books or movies. To put Rapeplay in perspective to the film industry there is a movie called Irreversible in which Monica Belluci is raped for nine minutes. Why hasn't their been a cry to regulate this movie? Surely someone can just as easily buy that on Amazon as they could this "game". In a matter of fact, here's the link right here.

Irreversible - Amazon

Just to see how late in the game this decision would be, I found a page that had 1052 films tagged with the term rape. So if we're to start regulating games, we should start regulating all mediums. Then we'll have to start an agency to review these mediums, fund that, and provide discourse between the industries. I can bank that it won't be cheap. Or we could have parents take an interest in their kids. What do you think would be the fiscally conservative route?

As to the legality, I'm not a constitutional scholar and neither are you. I don't try to second guess SCOTUS.

There's a difference between second-guessing and noting legal precedent. As your seed notes, Illinois, Michigan, Minnesota, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Washington, and California have had laws struck down based on unconstitutionality. Seven out of seven times the law has been brought up, judges have struck it down. To me, that sounds like a pretty valid reason to believe it will be struck down by the SCOTUS as well.

And I'm not constitutional scholar, but being one isn't required. The law is plain as day. Every form of entertainment media is protected free speech under the constitution. That includes video games, like it or not. If this law is passed, it opens dangerous floodgates. Every protection of entertainment media based on free speech would suddenly be questionable and challenged in court. The rights of comedians to use humor, the rights of artists to paint controversial material, the rights of singers to criticize the government. All of it, challenged in court and with legal precedent putting it into doubt.

All of that. Because you think some unproven boogeyman is more important than protecting the Constitution.

As I said above, they are agreeing to hear the appeal. The case itself has been settled (seven times). Six states have chosen to drop it there. California is pressing forward with an appeal, and so it's going to the Supreme Court. This isn't a matter of whether or not precedent has been established; it has seven times. This is, instead, the first state that has decided to appeal to the SCOTUS. California is banking on the Justices disagreeing with the judges, but seeing as judges have already ruled it unconstitutional -- seven times -- I'm betting that a majority of the Justices will too.

It isn't settled if SCOTUS agreed to hear it.

You're getting awfully hung up on semantics. Let me be clearer: it was settled, at the state level. It was settled six times. California is the first state to appeal. The SCOTUS' job is to hear appealed cases. The legal precedent is very clearly established on obscenity law, but seeing as states keep attempting to pass unconstitutional laws, it makes sense for the SCOTUS to step in and establish its final ruling on the subject.

If you want to press the point, video games specifically have not been addressed by prior rulings. California is seeking a special constitutional exception for the video games as a particular medium, and no precedent has been established for it. That is what hasn't been addressed, and that is why they're hearing the case. Even so, you're kidding yourself if you don't see how established Federal and State precedent, obscenity law, and the Constitution are all pointing at this being ruled the same way seven states have.

Oddly, you're concentrating much more on semantics than the details of obscenity law and legal precedent. Curious.

Lilith41

My question why "RapePlay" even exists? This is disgusting and it's hard to believe that there adults that even buy this garbage.

Kids can't buy liquor so regulating games like this doesn't strike me as wrong though I wouldn't call garbage like "Rapeplay" a game.

Actually in some cases it's a fetish for some for real life sex even. It's not a majority but there actually is quite a few people into it you could find even within the U.S and Europe.

I know it's a fetish among adults; that's why it exists a genre in particular porn cuts out there but to glamorize into a game where kids will play, no. Just because it might not be sold to kids, doesn't mean they won't have access some other way and play it, and they will.

And the US with it's great rep. for proper sex education too on a timely basis. Only here where kids get the "Facts of Life" at age 12 for the first time and yet are getting pregnant at the same time, same age. Not good at all.

Parents regulating video games? Yeah right. The parents are too busy with their own little lives to really see what junior is doing

Chuck, my Junior plays his video games with me. I can even kick his ass in football sometimes!!

I remember my mom coming over a while back raising hell about Mortal Kombat LOL!!

Then they can rarely be called parents then can they?

Wouldn't the blame then shift to the state for failing to regulate something enough then? Someone might then sue the state because they were able to get a game that they shouldn't have?

Hey, I know. We should regulate guns too because kids might be able to kill themselves or others.

So you think that taxpayer money should not be spent protecting kids?

Do you think taxpayer money should be spent doing what's already being done? The ESRB currently rates all games sold in the US, and a game without an ESRB rating (either not submitting to the rating process or the ESRB refusing to classify the game) won't be sold at most retailers. And on that note, game retailers far surpass their colleagues in the movie and music industries when it comes to ID checks.

So, again, why do you want to spend money to do something that's being done already?

Please prove your assertion that retailers are not selling violent games to children.

Why, certainly. Gamestop/EB Games, a retail chain specifically for video games and equipment, had only a 6% failure rate when it came to checking IDs. The superstores like Target and Walmart had worse scores, but on average, it's harder to get an M-Rated video game than it is to get an R-Rated movie, PAL music or a movie ticket to an R-rated movie.

Loretta, how about letting the parents be parents and actually do their damn job? arad, despite previous disagreements, i vehemently agree with you on this post.

That means one in every five kids can buy a video game they should not have. That's not good enough.

And here's the problem. You are trying to determine what is "good enough" for the entire country. For all you know, every single one of those kids had parental approval. Comments like this make it clear that you're seeking state restriction to override parental authority, not to work in tandem with it.

Regardless of whether the kid can buy it, a parent can set up a parental lock so they can't play the game in the first place. If a parent does this I'm banking a teenager isn't willing to drop $60 on a game they can't use.

I'm not interested in comparison to other media.

Oh? So it's not your concern that kids can go get the latest hardcore rap CD about murdering cops and raping women? Or pick up the latest Saw movie? They're far more likely to be successful doing those than getting an M-Rated video game. Period.

And like the previous posts stated, it's not the government's job to do what a parent isn't willing to. If the parent can't take five minutes to set a parental rating lock on the system, then odds are they don't have five minutes to make sure their kid isn't doing other things that are far worse than running people over in GTA.

I suspect this increased vigilance is because of states introducing laws to regulate them.

I challenge you to show such laws being passed without being ruled unconstitutional. Because last I checked, there aren't any.

The reason why the movie industry first went into rating their movies was because Congress was going to pass a law imposing ratings on them. They did it to forestall that action. The same here: the retailers are doing a better job of policing themselves in order to stop lawmakers from implementing a law that would force them to do it.

And the video game retail industry is doing better than the movie or music retailers without said law. The trend for increased enforcement was improving long before the 2005 bill, and it improved afterward as well. The ESRB is doing it's job. The retailers are getting better. Why legislate redundancy?

That's like asking: Would you rather kids murder than rape?

I find it ironic that you've used that same logic elsewhere.

Trying to pretend that selling kids M-rated games is better or worse than selling kids some other violent media is not a valid argument, so I am not interested in pursuing it.]

Of course it isn't a valid argument, because video games aren't inherantly better or worse than those other forms of media. The enforcement of the ratings, however, is valid, and in that department, the video game retailers vastly outstrip the other media outlets in this.

Trying to pit parents vs the government is another false argument. It is governments job to protect our children and ourselves -- yes, including parents. Amazing, I know, but true.

It's the government's job to protect, but it's also the parent's job to be a parent. Amazing, I know, but true.

It isn't the government's job to provide schools or make laws about schools because parents should do their job and educate their children. "it's not the government's job to do what a parent isn't willing to."

The government provides a service, it's up to you to use it or not.

It isn't the government's job to have penal codes that affect minors because it is the parents should do their job and keep their children from committing murder, robbery, rape and the like. "it's not the government's job to do what a parent isn't willing to."

Red herring. Crimes affect more than just the perpetrator, and those laws are set in place to maintain public order and ensure adequate punishment for the guilty. Without said laws, it'd be akin to the Hatfield and McCoy feud (I think those are the two), where one family aggravates the other, then they start attacking the other because of what the other did.

It isn't the government's job to have child welfare laws that prevent child abuse because parents should do their job and not abuse children. "it's not the government's job to do what a parent isn't willing to."

Again, red herring. In this situation there's a perpetrator (the abuser) and a victim (the child), as well as convincing evidence of said abuse, which physically and mentally harms the child in clearly documented ways. This isn't a valid comparison because 1.) ID check enforcement for video games is above average, preventing minors from buying games, 2.) Minors can buy said games with parental consent and 3.) considering violent crime with minors has gone down since video games hit mainstream, the comparison doesn't hold much water.

Oh, and you might want to check your sources before you try and support your argument with an article that doesn't have anything to do with video games.

How's that working for you? Not so much? I thought not. It is the government's job to both do what parents aren't willing to do and to add to what parents are willing to do.

It's working out pretty well for me. How about you? Not so much? I thought not. It's the government's job to prevent anarchy in society and it isn't to be the babysitter while the parent slacks off. The parent has to parent, or live with what their apathy has grown.

The bill was 2005 and after 2006, the number of retailers who sold to minors began to drop. I doubt that was a coincidence.

The number of retailers selling to minors has been steadily dropping years. You're honestly suggesting that a 2005 law, passed only in California, and immediately overturned by the state courts, had a nationwide impact.

As to what games would be affected, I cannot judge that because I am not familiar enough with the games.

Shocking.

However, if a game is not meant for children, then what's the problem?

The fact that we should be trusting parents to parent, and if some parents allow their children to play Modern Warfare 3 at age 15, the state shouldn't be permitted to override that decision.

I read the standards and don't have the same interpretation as you. Exactly which part of the standards do you think would be objectionable?

For me it's mainly the part that ignores constitutional law.

I read the standards and don't have the same interpretation as you. Exactly which part of the standards do you think would be objectionable?

For me its to broad alot of games could fall under those standards that aren't M rated

The fact that we should be trusting parents to parent, and if some parents allow their children to play Modern Warfare 3 at age 15, the state shouldn't be permitted to override that decision.

Not to nitpick or anything...but unless you're from the future, Modern Warfare 3 isn't out yet... >_>

Hmmm....weren't you just arguing that seven states had passed laws?

And they were all overturned.

The movie industry chose to voluntarily instill a ratings system when Congress was discussing passing a law that would impose on on them.

ESRB. Already in place ten years before the California law From their wikipedia page:

The ESRB assigns ratings to games based on their content, similar to the motion picture rating systems used in many countries. Their aim is to aid consumers in determining a game's content and suitability. A game's rating is displayed on its box, the media, in advertisements and on the game's website(s).

The rating system is strictly voluntary, however nearly all video games are submitted for rating because many retail stores prohibit the sale of unrated video games and the major console manufacturers will not license games for their systems unless they carry ESRB ratings.

Also:

Certain game publishers’ decision to have controversial games rated seems to show that they are not targeted at young children.[citation needed] They are rated by the ESRB as "Mature" (M) or "Adults Only" (AO) in the US, or given BBFC ratings of 15 or 18 in the UK. The packaging notes that these games should not be sold to children.

There. I hope this is the last time we have to beat the dead horse.

So how would the motives of these retailers, when faced with a trend among states, be different?

It was different because...retailers were improving their ID checks before these laws were concieved.

Not to nitpick or anything...but unless you're from the future, Modern Warfare 3 isn't out yet... >_>

You & your facts.

People need to blame the people who do violent acts, not video games, music or films. Often people protesting against media are the ones who know least about it.

I've played many violent video games, including DOOM & Halo Series. I don't even own a great gun.

The only thing from media that I can think inspired me were The Batman comics.

I took up martial arts & became socially aware, I have an interest in criminology & psychology.

Don't we have a rating system for video games, movies, TV shows etc. etc. etc.?

Video games have a seperate rating system that's regulated by the ESRB, though the ratings themselves are comparable to those of movies. And the FTC's secret shopper test to see if vendors are compliant showed that video game retailers are far more responsible for carding than other industries are. (Gamestop had only a 6% failure rate)