Supreme Court rejects banning of games to minors

[Rico]

It looks like the Supreme Court doesn't agree with California and their proposal to ban certain video games sales to minors.  I kind of agree with them.  The truth is, if a kid wants a game he'll just get his parents to buy it for him anyway.  And if parents aren't involved enough to know what games their kids are playing, they have bigger problems.

Washington (CNN) -- The Supreme Court has struck down a California law that would have banned selling "violent" video games to children, a case balancing free speech rights with consumer protection.
The 7-2 ruling Monday is a victory for video game makers and sellers, who said the ban -- which had yet to go into effect -- would extend too far. They say the existing nationwide, industry-imposed, voluntary rating system is an adequate screen for parents to judge the appropriateness of computer game content....

Full article:
http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/27/scotus.video.games/

[Bryancd]

Yes, I think that's the right decision. I don't see the need for states to legislate what should be a parental issue.

[Dangelus]

I find this a pretty strange application of the 1st amendment.

Over here in the UK, pretty much everything is age restricted. Video games are classified the same way as DVDs etc. I worked in the video games retail industry for years and it's a huge hassle with kids trying to buy these games. In a way I think it's a good idea to take away the responsibility from the retailer and put in in the hands of the parents.