Sessler's Soapbox: Gaming is Not a Crime!

Posted: September 21, 2010
Sessler's Soapbox: Gaming is Not a Crime!
Adam discusses the current Supreme Court case, deciding if it's constitutional to outlaw the sale of mature games to minors.

Comments are Closed

  • ArrenKae

    The fact that Lee makes such a law and the Supreme Court hears it publicizes their jobs are unnecessary. We only need common law, not lawmakers stirring up trouble nor a court to occasionally knock down or uphold their nonsense.

    2:47 and I don't think the ESRB or MS/Sony would allow such a thing for certification.

    Comics never recovered from that shrink's lies.

    I'm glad that the SC seems to be against this law but I still anticipate such a law will pass. I don't think the current generation will die and be replaced before someone writes a law that seems gentle enough in its' abuse that the courts consider it reasonable. Then the potential change will come about (or not) from whether a generation of lawyers, judges, and other legal people who're also gamers enforce such a law.

    Posted: November 9, 2010 1:16 PM
  • cicero99

    Good episode and the best cover graphic.

    Posted: October 5, 2010 2:13 PM
  • MeOverThinker

    If this law passes, that means what kids can and cannot play with is not up to the parents. If you buy a M-rated game for your child, it would be like buying beer and cigarettes for them.

    Well the bright side of this law would be to make a few bucks off of teenagers waiting outside of video game stores asking strangers to help them buy a video game.

    This is ridiculous; lets focus on laws that will benefit society.

    Posted: October 5, 2010 11:14 AM
  • Javan4eCS

    The California law is unconstitutional. The Supreme court should uphold the protection of video games, books, music and all forms of artistic expression under the First Amendment.

    As with most politics, the heart of the matter is not the central topic of the debate. Everyone agrees that this is about protecting children, and for some it is also about indirectly punishing those who create imagery and culture that they see as harmful to children, and that is the topic up for debate. However the heart of the matter should be how do we as a society guide our youth to be healthy and happy individuals, not what should we deny them.

    I am a father of three, a 9 year old, a 7 year old and a 3 year old, and none of them are allowed to play games that are above ESRB rating of Everyone 10+. Some may say that allowing them to play even this type of game or watching movies rated PG-13 is harmful to them because they are too impressionable, while others would say that I am being overprotective. Also, I review all of the television, books, games, TV and internet that they access, and sometimes, when I see a potential for learning or a warning, I will discuss the material with them.

    In an imperfect world, and with the best of intentions, is this not what we should all do to the best of our ability? Do we need government to take a hand or overrule our ability to guide our own children?

    Posted: October 3, 2010 8:47 PM
  • FaroDemon

    Yeah I can definitly see what he is saying. I think M.A.D.D. needs to go protest something else.

    Posted: September 30, 2010 7:19 PM
  • Catman789

    condescending nintendo is

    Posted: September 29, 2010 2:42 PM
  • Kensan_Oni

    This should be a no brainer, really.

    The simple question is, do you fine and punish stores when a Minor buys a R rated film? No, of course not. There is NO difference between these two things, and I am ashamed of my state for having come up with this stupid law.

    Posted: September 29, 2010 9:10 AM
  • humanscum

    well i thing this suck cuz its like the goverment trying to tell u wat to paly n wat u vant paly not kool we need to fight back n not let this happen cuz wat next wat we can listento wat music we kan lisent to n stuff l love my metal so if they try to take that hell na its on but for rilly its like want next who we can sleep with n how we cant sleep with u no im say if i want to be with some one who like me n is my age u no who is the gov. to say i kant u no wats they satr taking something waya their going to try to tell us wat to do with ever thing in our life so fight back ppl i no this gov. they we see is not the rill gov but still now runs this hole world but in the words ov otep (rise rebel resit) ppl fight back

    Posted: September 29, 2010 2:35 AM
  • Hype2k2

    Again, do our elected officials have absolutely nothing to do other than crusade against something as trivial as video games, versus focus more time on our failing economy.

    Posted: September 27, 2010 9:40 PM
  • bhumphries

    This law is unconstitutional. It is not like the video game industry is hiding the content that is in games. It is right there on the box. However, I am not surprised by the push for this law. The government seems to think that people cannot take care of themselves and it is their job to do it for us. They want to control everything. Right now, they are trying to pass a law that will censor the internet in the US against "piracy." Except if this law is passed, the government cannot not just block, but completely remove any site they deem necessary from the internet.

    As for this particular law, people do not understand the full consequences of giving more power to the government. Of course when you tell an older person that the purpose of this law is to keep violent and explicit entertainment away from children, they will support it. As Adam said, there is a language/generational barrier between us. I know most retailers (i.e. my local Gamestop) will not allow a minor to buy a "Mature" game without consent of a parent, and this is after they give a complete explanation of everything that is in the game.

    So if you really think about it, what purpose does this law serve but to pave the way for more censorship in the U.S.?

    Posted: September 27, 2010 6:19 PM
  • Blood_Fox

    I feel like politicians use videogames to say to voters
    "look, im going to make the world safer for your kids. Im a good guy, vote for me"
    i cant wait until religion starts to ban video games as well.

    Posted: September 27, 2010 6:09 PM
  • suryu

    all i can say is omggggggggggggggg commercials ugh i knew it would happen sooner or later the greed gets to us all

    Posted: September 27, 2010 4:57 PM
  • attackgengar

    I support this law... whatever it takes to get the squeakers and pre-pubescents out of my halo:reach lobbies...I bet that's the reasoning behind our supreme court justices, they are all really just gamers who want adolescent free lobbies ;)

    Posted: September 26, 2010 10:31 PM
  • greattom12

    Once again, you have succeded in giving us another great soapbox :P

    Posted: September 26, 2010 9:02 PM
  • Darkpuppy

    @ all

    Thanks for explaining a lot of the reasons and alternate views to my post, I would like to also retract the first line of my post as it was inappropriate to direct my confusion at Adam.

    In the end I do hope that my country gets its act together and stops holding back on new ratting, R18+, so the level of censorship we are effected with is reduced. I still stand by the thought that staff need to be made responsible for holding up the ratings on movies games magazines and even books, but that before that's possible we would have to trust our governments are going to do this based on best intentions for not exposing minors to material that may detrimentally effect their development.

    Again, my apologies to Adam, I found that I was unable to edit my previous post after it had been sent.

    Posted: September 26, 2010 8:30 PM
  • ShdwFox

    @latinoish_bwbhair Your jumping to conclusions. You can't blame the federal government for this, unless, your specifically talking about the Supreme Court picking up this case in the first place. That I might understand. Otherwise it doesn't make sense. The state of California (which isn't entirely accurate either) initially tried to pass this law at the state level. The jury denied the law. They -then- took it to the Supreme Court.

    It is pretty troubling that the Supreme Court is allowing this case to take place. The only reason I can fathom for it is because it goes against first amendment rights. Only the Supreme Court can make a law that would alter or ratify the constitution.

    And do you really think their would ever be a tyranny; in -this- country? Ha! We Americans would overthrow the government in a heart beat if they overstepped their bounds.

    "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty. "
    - Thomas Jefferson

    Posted: September 26, 2010 8:07 PM
  • Fiddyfell

    It really is a unfair thing to do, it's strictly going against the first amendment and younger people to play games, so many people would be in prison right now.
    Just go in one match of MoW2 and there will undoubtedly be a minor in the match

    Posted: September 26, 2010 6:31 PM
  • latinoish_bwbhair

    Wow, having the state try to take charge on who teaches your kids good and evil; force you to take healthcare "or ELSE" , and the authorities gaining right by the supreme court to tag; trace and follow you anywhere you go via your cell phone or any chip on you, seems to be the same overall concern to me of a FEDERAL GOVERNMENT over stepping it's bounds again; to control who it didn't create. Very troubling & just another decade of excuses to try and bring tyranny; to me.

    Posted: September 26, 2010 11:17 AM
  • Slimm_City

    Old people always feel the need to something away something that younger generations love, need, & enjoy. How about we take away their canes and virtual hips...

    Posted: September 26, 2010 9:24 AM
  • garrettgotgame

    Please speak up for us from your soapbox....and THANK YOU!...whatever happened to the 1st amendment? or my right to snipe a piece of data in the head?

    Posted: September 25, 2010 11:35 PM