Video games Supreme Court case

I know we have a lot of gamers on here. Curious about what people thought about the argument over the California law that bans violent video games for children? The industry is arguing that it is a free speech violation. On the other hand, it seems like common sense that some of these really violent war games and such would be OK to keep from young kids.

Hope this isn't too political?

 

If 5-year-olds can't shoot communists, the communists have won.

 

no weed, no violence and no sex in Californistan

 

What to do when the parents don't, won't or fail at their job?

 

I take it you won't be getting Black Ops as a happy meal toy in San Francisco?

 

The justices will play "Grand Theft Auto" to determine their decision.

 

Justice Kennedy doesn't even bother picking up the money. He just kills her for the sure joy of watching the life slip away with every blow of the bat.

 

Because I am an expert at procrastinating, I humbly submit this (though I'm sure most members of this site could have turned out something better):

WASHINGTON D.C – In a decision many commentators are hailing as a victory for one's right to “mercilessly beat, blast, and blow shit up,” the U.S. Supreme Court's 6-3 decision struck down a California law, Thursday, that made it illegal to sell violent video games to minors.
The case, Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association concerned a law, passed in 2005, that prohibits stores from selling or renting to anyone under 18 games that portray the fictional "killing, maiming, dismembering, or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."
“In other words, the really fun games,” said Michael A. Bamberger , the attorney for the Entertainment Merchants Association, which represented video game companies and other entertainment industries concerned about what this case may mean to their medium.
The court based it's ruling on the First Amendment, saying that video games were a form of expression, and therefore were protected.
“Most video games strive to tell a story,” chief Justice Roberts wrote in the majority opinion. “Whether that story is one of a plumber's often futile attempts to save a princess, or of a elf-child's misguided attempts to save a princess, these stories are speech in the same manner a book or movie is, and must be protected. Especially if that story involved blowing the ever-loving shit out of something.”
Not every justice agreed with Roberts, however.
“This court has often maintained that limits can be imposed upon free speech in order to protect the public welfare. In Schenck v. United States this court set forth the Clear and Present Danger doctrine,” Ruth Bader Ginsburg said in her dissenting opinion, citing the famous 1919 case. “And we feel that the court can do so again in this case. Sure, hacking off an alien's face with a chainsaw-gun, as the high-definition blood hits the TV screen is totally bad-ass. But we have to consider what type of message this sends to our children.”
Ginsburg went on to say that such depictions of violence in video games would leave children “confused” and “misinformed.”
“Sure, it seems like a great idea to repeatedly run over a homeless person in your car when it's a video game,” said the Associate Justice, who can be found powning n00bs under the gamer tags of xxRuthofallEvillxx and UCant_Hndl_theRuth. “But in the video game, your alignment never gets messed up, and you never have to spend all of the next day using a magnifying glass to make sure you've gotten all of the victim's hairs out of your tire treads. As a result, kids just don't understand the consequences of their violent actions.”
Though Justice Ginsburg did agree with the majority opinion that “spawn campers are teh gayzorz.”
Court observers said that Thursday's ruling would go down as the most notable ruling on video game violence since the controversial 1981 ruling in United States v. Blinky, in which the court, by a 5-4 margin, upheld the government's right to treat roving gangs of paranormal creatures as “enemy combatants” instead of citizens, no matter how “randomly they moved,” and, therefore, devouring them after consuming some type of yellow “super-dot” did not constitute a violation of the Constitution's protection against “cruel and unusual punishment.”
While it remains to be seen what repercussions this ruling will have, one result was immediately evident. Shortly after the court issued it's ruling, Disney and Rockstar announced a collaborative effort, “Phineas & Ferb: Rise of the monotremes,” a game that revolves around the story of two brothers and a platypus, who kill, rape, and pillage their way through the Tri-State area in an attempt to build an unstoppable crime syndicate, all while evading the cops, outwitting other crime bosses, and avoiding their sister, Candace, so she can't tell their mom on them.
“Without this ruling, this visionary story could never have been realized,” Rockstar CEO Russ Weiner said.
Though the State of California lost this case, California State Assembly Speaker John A. Perez said the state feels a more loosely written law that exempts “really sweet games” might receive a more favorable hearing in the courts.
“If we can convince (Associate) Justice (Sonia) Sotomayor that games she considers to be 'l33t' won't be impacted by this law, it might just stand up to her legal realist philosophy of Constitutional interpretation,” he said.