Violent Video Games OK...but "R" rated movies NOT? (dollar, rating)

[MIKEETC]

Originally Posted by thecoalman

When I was years beyond getting carded at the bars or liquor stores I got carded at Best Buy for a video game. Think it was Doom3

Clerk is like you "You have ID?", I'm like "ID for what?". It was quite amusing.

I guess that must have been Best Buy's policy?

When I worked at a now-defunct music store we had a similar policy.

[everybody ignored it]

[BiggJoe4181]

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

This is usually why we recommend researching things before making kneejerk reactions.

Woah man....thats harsh. I thought MODS were supposed to be nice.

[Dampylle]

Originally Posted by BiggJoe4181

Well then...my entire thread has now been proven absolutely useless.

Thank you all for knocking me down a peg.....

Glad to have been of assistance

But yeah... the whole voluntary policy and enforcement is one of the reasons why the law was overturned.

[AnUnidentifiedMale]

The justices "ruled that under no circumstances could the government be allowed to protect children by limiting violence in the media."

So this would mean that children should have unrestricted access to pornography as well, right?

[Krazyone57]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

The justices "ruled that under no circumstances could the government be allowed to protect children by limiting violence in the media."

So this would mean that children should have unrestricted access to pornography as well, right?

This is not a government issue. It should be a parenting issue. If you don't want you child to see porn then don't let him/her watch porn. Pretty simple.

[twinArmageddons]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

The justices "ruled that under no circumstances could the government be allowed to protect children by limiting violence in the media."

So this would mean that children should have unrestricted access to pornography as well, right?

Pornography is under a completely different section.

And yes, there are video game porn.

Those games typically get an "AO" rating, which the case was not about that, rather about games that got an "M" rating.

Therefore, pornography is entirely irrelevant to this topic.

[Dampylle]

Originally Posted by AnUnidentifiedMale

The justices "ruled that under no circumstances could the government be allowed to protect children by limiting violence in the media."

So this would mean that children should have unrestricted access to pornography as well, right?

Try again, Pornography is limited due to classification as "offensive" to minors... and offensive materials are one of the sort classified as non protected speech meaning it is legal to limit or restrict their distribution.

In a legal sense regarding pornography it was ruled that "sexual material is obscene unless it possesses serious literary, artistic political, or scientific value” and as such is unprotected and thus has no bearing on or relevance to this particular ruling.

[West of Encino]

Originally Posted by Chicagoland60426

When I was under 17( 5 1/2 years ago) and trying to buy Grand Theft Auto, I had to at least get an ok from my guardians. But this is only in California. Where I'm at, Gamestop doesn't allow those under 17 to buy mature rated games without the parents/guardian's approval.

True at that. I remember when I bought GTA Vice City Stories, GameStop requested I show my ID. Luckily I had my college ID and I got a pass.

[Bmateo]

Originally Posted by Rita Mordio

Did you know that it's not actually against the law to rent a rated "R" movie to a kid?

With that in mind, why should there be a law against renting something like Duke Nukem Forever to a kid?

In my opinion this is not a first amendment argument. I would be fine with minors being able to have whatever video game they want with parents permission, but allowing them to buy directly is not OK with me. If the same standard was applied, minors could buy hard porn under "the first amendment". It's a bad decision in my opinion.

And to all the comments about "I got carded at Gamestop". Well that is voluntary. I applaud Gamestop for being a good company and a good corporate citizen, but it is voluntary, and there will be other companies out there that are more interested in the dollars, then the kids' best interest.


(I only read page one, so forgive if this has been stated already.

[Bmateo]

Originally Posted by h0tmess

Ratings (on anything) should be merely a suggestion so parents understand what they are buying. I'm not exactly sure how I feel (especially as a gamer) with laws in regards to who can buy what games. I grew up back when Mortal Kombat made everyone angry at how gorey it was, LOL, but we grew up just fine. That's because my parents did this weird thing like, talking to us, and explained that ripping someone's head off is not polite.

Parents need to educate themselves on individual games, to be honest. You can have 2 "M" rated games, but they are entirely different as to why they are rated M. One you as parent may be totally against (lots of sex and drug use), but the other you may be OK with (senseless, but entertaining violence)

I guess I never gave it much thought. My parents were parents to me, so I never had to worry about these things. *shrugs*

I agree with this, and it is what I support all the way. But to allow the sale to minors suggests that the parents may not get to have that discussion. I think a rating system (suggested) is great, but I think parents should have the right to buy or not buy the games for their minor children. That's my opinion. (If I was not clear in my previous post, I am against any kinds of bans. Just also against cutting the parents out of the loop.)