US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law
 

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/27/su...alifornia-law/

Interesting news to us Americans and the way government views it as a medium. Joystiq also has some analysis articles about the Supreme Court's decision, as well as an article about the senator behind the stricken down law being a whiner about corporate America:

http://www.joystiq.com/2011/06/27/se...-ahead-of-our/

I thought the responsibility for these games getting sold to kids was a responsibility thrown on their parent's shoulders isn't it?

I mean it's not like cashiers at stores aren't forced to check age requirements for these games. Their registers even prompt them to check for ID, and I've seen it work too. I saw a parent buying a game for their kid once and when the clerk said that it was a game intended for 17+ old kids since they needed to verify her ID, the mother quickly took the game and told the kid that he couldn't have it because he wasn't old enough.

Corporate America before the mental health and safety of the community indeed. I thought the last time someone tried to keep putting up lawsuits against video game companies he ended up getting disbarred.

Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law
 

What does that mean for private sales though...a store can turn down black customers if it is privately owned, so can't they not sell violent video games?

*SUMMONING BOND: the milf hunter and lawyer.*

Also, this topic is hilarious...but needless to say, after reading numerous legit studies on violent behavior and gaming, I'm not remotely convinced that gaming is the culprit.

Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law
 

I think there's a little bit more of a problem with that first part but I believe it is ultimately up to the owner of the business of whether they want to sell the games or not, but if they don't want to sell the games to someone who has consent from their parents if they're underage, then they shouldn't really stock the game at all, but then of course not only do they lose the money from the parents who buy these games but they lose the money from the people that are old enough to buy the games as well, so it's not smart business.

That almost makes me sound like I'm putting corporate America before the mental health of the children and the safety of the community! :lol:

People just need a reason to justify everything but there are definitely some more deep seated issues regarding violence in video games and it's correlation to violent behavior.

Everyone wants a scapegoat.

Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law
 

Wait a store can't turn down a customer based on their race, age, gender or anything else.

Private or publicly owned or am I mistaken?

Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law
 

I do not believe you are mistaken, unless we were conquered by some ultra-Libertarian nation last night.

Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law
 

Someone probably could find a way around it, like to mask that they don't want to sell a game because of age or something when there's probably racism or something that's really behind it.

It'd be a pretty hard loophole kinda deal though.

Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law
 

There's a difference between refusing to sell someone something and refusing to allow someone to buy something in your store.

Gun store owners don't just sell to anyone, but its never because the person is black or a female.

Same way you can't sell violent games to minors, but you can't deny them from buying games in your store.

Re: US Supreme Court throws the Banhammer on California Law
 

For the record, you are allowed to refuse people service as a private business, but you can't do so for the reason of race or gender. Example: You can refuse service to a black person if they are being a jerk or if you just don't like them, but you can't refuse service for the sole reason of their color. Some have tried to refuse service to a race and claimed its for other reasons, but the courts look at a pattern of behavior to make their determinations.