Guardian: Violent video games, California and the ambiguity of freedom

[Poll_Blind]

From The Guardian:

California state senator Leland Yee, who penned the 2005 law, also questioned the ruling; he has vowed to fight on. "As a result of their decision," he told PC Magazine, "Wal-Mart and the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids' mental health and the safety of our community. It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children."

--snip--

It's an ambiguous and complex situation that contrasts sharply with entertainment classification systems in UK, where the rating of movies and video games is more closely enforced. In the US, the Entertainment Software Rating Board oversees an entirely voluntary ratings system, with no legal powers of censure over retailers, even when a title is rated AO, or "adults only". The ESRB requests that participating stores ask for parental permission before selling Mature or AO rated games, but failure to comply is not legally enforceable.

--snip--

Amid all the talk of victory, let's not forget that the EMA is a trade organization not a free speech campaigner and that it represents an industry that would potentially lose billions in revenue if sales of games were to be restricted as they are in Britain.

Justice Breyer: ""What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting the sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her? What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman - bound, gagged, tortured and killed - is also topless?"

PB

[TheWraith]

1. Yeah, Britain is really a model we want to follow here.

A virtual police state with limited to no privacy rights, and the government thinks the public can't be trusted with guns, knives, or even glasses made out of actual glass. That's really the kind of government we want to encourage, banning anything and everything "for their own good."

[Poll_Blind]

2. Uh, I've been to Britain. Have you? Maybe you should read your own response:

Does that sound like someone who knows much about Britian to you?

:shrug:

That aside, you completely avoid the topic of the OP, instead choosing to focus on a hilariously out-of-touch caricature of a country as some sort of reason to dismiss the idea.

PB

[TheWraith]

5. Do you deny that Britain is a world leader in nanny-state behavior?

Censorship is just one aspect tying in to their surveillance/national security state and their dedicated efforts to keep the population helpless and under control.

[krabigirl]

3. They should be able to buy both. Nt

[Morning Dew]

4. +1.

Parents should be the ones to supervise their children.