President Bush Not Interested In Getting Involved In Qualcomm/Broadcom Patent Fight

Oh Look, Once Again A Judge Has Tossed Out Video Game Sale Ban As Unconstitutional

from the yes,-again dept

Tue, Aug 7th 2007 9:43am — Mike Masnick

Over and over and over and over and over and over again, state politicians have been passing laws that ban the sale of certain video games to children and every single time the laws are struck down as unconstitutional. Yet, local politicians keep proposing similar laws. Why? Because it gives them a talking point for the next election and making it look like they're "protecting the children" (even if the law does no such thing). However, what they're really doing is wasting taxpayer money, because every time one of these unconstitutional laws is passed, the state has to go to court to defend it, only to find it thrown out again. The latest state to waste taxpayer money over this? My home state of California, who has now had its law thrown out as unconstitutional, just like all the rest. Let's make this clear: more than ten states have passed these laws and not a single one has been found to be constitutional. Any politician passing such a law these days knows that they're wasting taxpayer money on a law that will undoubtedly be found unconstitutional -- and yet they do it anyway. What does that say about the politicians pushing such legislation?

Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.

Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.

While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.

–The Techdirt Team

Filed Under: legislation, video games

33 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mike, 7 Aug 2007 @ 9:53am

Just like most other politicians, it says they're scum.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Casper, 7 Aug 2007 @ 9:57am

Duh...
WTF ever happened to the market sorting out the success of products. Why do we feel the need to TELL people what THEY want to buy. If someone wants to something and a company is willing to sell it, that is between the buyer and seller unless it has direct safety implications for the general public.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sanguine Dream, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:00am

It's about being "first"...
Just like here and on many other sites these politicians want to be the "first" to make one of these laws stick. First off this has never been about protecting the children it was always about making that emotional 30sec. sound byte for the news to drum up votes. Well now a challenge has been made. These anti-violent game laws are getting struck down left and right so now the push isn't protect the children it is not to be the "first" to get one of these anti-violent game laws to stick.

Imagine the press coverage if one of those remaining states passed such a law and it stuck. Over protective parents would come out of the wood work to support her/him.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jason Buck, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:03am

Parents are the Law for Minors
Enough with wasting our Tax payers money. Games are rated now. If a kid is under the age required to buy the darn game, fine the vendor for selling it to him.

Ultimately it is up to the parents to decide what game their kids can and cannot have.

Somethings just need to be legislated at home. Politicians should stay out of it.

Our 14 y/o knows that he is only allowed to by car and sports video games, no games with guns or sexual content. He knows that violating those rules means lose of his console. That doesn't mean that he doesn't play them at a friends house where those parents are okay with it. So again, laws are what you make of them, and there is always away around it. Some parents just don't care and will buy any game for their kids.

Can I have the Patent for the VChip for Video Games. Parents enter a code on the kids game console and if the rating of the game exceeds the code entered, the game doesn't play.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dave, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:13am

game console vchip
Isn't their already something like that in the ps2. I know you can lock out movies based on ratings on it.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:15am

Something I've never really understood, is why it's unconstitutional to ban the sale of certain games to minors, but not unconstitutional to do the same for movies...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:18am

(in response to the 6th comment)

That is because there is no law that prevents selling R rated movies to minors, it is industry regulated, but not law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob3000, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:27am

Re: Duh...
Because parenting in America has taken a drastic turn for the worse in the past 15 years. Parents are too busy working on the appearance of wealth.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:27am

Every time this subject comes up, I ask, and no one answers. If this is constitutional, why is keeping Playboy out of the hands of the under 18 crowd legal?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:28am

UNconstitutional*
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beefcake, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:31am

Campaign Funds
Wouldn't it be cool if the money used by the state to defend these laws (and others with similar purposes) counted directly against the sponsoring candidates' campaign funds, and was required to be reported by them as such?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
W4RM4N, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:37am

Re: Parents are the Law for Minors
Great idea. So great it's on consoles already. Check your XBOX for parental controls. I found it because a buddy of mine set it to "G," and no games would play.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Buzz, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:44am

It is all a matter of will power.
It is all a matter of will power. If little Kevin is bent on obtaining the latest first-person shooter featuring head explosions galore, no law will stop him from doing so. An older sibling or friend could just buy it for him, thus circumventing the law. On the other hand, if parents did their job (or little Kevin had personal morals and simply opted out of trying to obtain it) then life would go on just fine. These laws solve NOTHING.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
name, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:45am

Re:
isnt showing a child nude pictures illegal, among other things?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Buzz, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:46am

Oops, and to clarify...
I read over my post and forgot one detail:

This is a totally different issue from things like drugs/alcohol. Obviously, underaged people obtain these things illegally all the time, but it should remain illegal to aid in prosecution and whatnot. Video games are nowhere in the same ballpark. If a kid is caught with a violent video game, again, let the parents handle it. It is not a life-damaging substance.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AVonGauss, 7 Aug 2007 @ 10:46am

In answer...
In answer to Matt Bennett, Playboy I believe would fall under a classification of pornography or other similar classification like sexually explicit which I believe is illegal to sell or distribute to minors in most areas. In contradiction, in a lot of areas public libraries and retail bookstores carry books/magazines containing nude artwork or nude photography that is easily accessible to minors.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 11:08am

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,292415,00.html

apparently the terminator disagrees.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 11:10am

Re: Parents are the Law for Minors
"Can I have the Patent for the VChip for Video Games. Parents enter a code on the kids game console and if the rating of the game exceeds the code entered, the game doesn't play."

I am pretty sure the Wii console has something like this. Whenever I do an update, it reminds to look at its Parental Controls. I never did, but I imagine it can limit play time and disallow certain ratings.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Shalkar, 7 Aug 2007 @ 11:27am

The Breakdown
When it comes down to it, it's just like you all have said already: It's up to the parents. I'm happy to see that Jason Buck, the fourth post, is actually a parent and not just the biological parent. Most parents these days are still "trying to live their lives" and just try to be a part-time parent. Sorry, but it doesn't work that way. Quite obviously the only reason they even try to bring up laws like this are because the majority of parents DO fall in to that category I just named. Sad but true.

I completely agree with things like the V-Chip because it allows a parent a respite from the 24/7 stress of being a parent. It is also something that does not inhibit the people that SHOULD be allowed to see such things. Almost every time I go to a video game store or some place that sells video games, I see the PARENT buying the M-Rated game for their kids. The sales associate will even bring it to their attention that the game is M-Rated and WHY it's M-Rated! I just don't even have words to express how stupid those parents are. Then they wonder why their kid(s) are degenerates!

As for the Playbody versus National Geographic: Playboy is utterly about sex. National Geographic is about learning. The natives just happen to be nude. The difference is that the former is for getting off. The latter actually has some learning potential in it. So why don't they have books that are purely for teaching what sex is in the library? The same reason the retards in charge refuse to let there be Sex Classes in Junior and/or High School. They want to teach just abstinence instead of safe sex. "If they don't know how, then they can't do it!" Yeah... We're talking about nature here. Not buidling a nuke. Morons...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Bob, 7 Aug 2007 @ 11:36am

Here's a novel idea
Why don't parents take a more active role in what little Johnny is spending that $60 on?

If I wanted $60 to buy anything when I was growing up, my father would ask me 100 questions or so before he would even consider the request.

Now it seems like Parents just hand out money to their kids and let them buy whatever they want and don't care what their own kids are buying.

When I was in Best Buy recently I saw a boy of about 11 or 12 wanting to buy the most recent Grand Theft Auto game. His mother looked at it and said "OK" and GAVE him the cash for it. The boy actually pointed out to his Mother that he couldn't purchase it as it had a label saying no one under 18 blah blah blah, so his Mother said, "Give it to me, I'll buy it for you when we check out."

I imagine this sort of thing happens daily in these stores, so really, if the Parents don't care what their kids are doing with their time, should the government?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Charles Griswold, 7 Aug 2007 @ 11:48am

Re: Re:
isnt showing a child nude pictures illegal?
No. If that were the case, many public museums would be adults-only. Showing pornography to a child is illegal, but there is a difference between nudity and pornography (for instance, Playboy is not pornographic).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 7 Aug 2007 @ 11:49am

All the video game consoles (I own most of them) have very similar parental controls.

To the above, by AvonGauss, yes, I understand that, and the difference between porn and artistic nudes, but why is it legal to say a child may not have a lewd magazine, but may buy a videogame that ultimately has some of the same content?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Matt Bennett, 7 Aug 2007 @ 11:50am

An d why is one constituional, and the other not, much more importantly?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Melvin, 7 Aug 2007 @ 12:18pm

HERE'S a great idea!
First, let me say, i noticed that all responses to this article seemed to focus on the games, whereas the real focus should be...THE FRIVOLOUS(sp?)WASTE OF TAXPAYERS MONEY.
Now, for the idea. The next time anyone notices an article about some politico trying to pass some law that you deam a waste of taxpayers money, take the time to jot down the proposed legislative action number and the lawmakers name and state....then do a little background and find the names of that persons constituents that support said legislation.....and write letters and emails and phone calls, and encourage all your friends and acquaintances to do the same, and let them know of your disapproval and the fact that, in the same way they were elected in, they can be elected out....then take it to the polls on election day.
It wont be long before the legislators get the message that they work for, and are paid by, Us.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Norman619, 7 Aug 2007 @ 12:37pm

Re: It's about being "first"...
Sorry but no. These laws will never pass. These politicians are just going through the motions to earn political points. Even a blind person could see that.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Joe, 7 Aug 2007 @ 1:00pm

Re: game console vchip
I thought they had this on the 360 already. I just don't use it as I'm 25 and i'm the only one in my household who plays games.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Amethyst, 7 Aug 2007 @ 2:01pm

They keep doing it because the vast majority of parents are still not computer literate other than what they absolutely have to be for work, and won't do the internet research on the games to see if they are actually appropriate for their kids.

Most parents pick up a video game box and think, "Oooh...this must be like Pacman, little Johnny will love it." Or their kids will beg and beg and the parents will get the kid the game to shut them up. Parents need to be parents, and not let the computer be the babysitter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lucretious, 7 Aug 2007 @ 2:56pm

Two 'tards
Arnie has sworn to appeal the decision evidently.

I have no idea why he even bothered to run on the Republican ticket as he shown time and again that he will do things that are traditionally abhorred by the right. The industry has come up with a very effective ratings system and has overall policed itself extremely well. These are the kind of actions that Republicans, whether you agree with them or not in this case, have championed in the past and IMO makes sense.

Leyland Yee on the other hand is doing his typical shtick. He's normally a racial ambulance chaser and the Asian equivilent of Al Sharpton when it comes to choosing his fights. Any cause he can get behind that puts him in a morally "invincible" position such as anything related to supposed "child saftey" or minority special interest is where you'll find that coward.

Before I get called out I'm a political moderate who is for anyone who uses common sense to solve issues rather than towing the party line no matter how idiotic. Both these representatives show the worst of what both parties have to offer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Aug 2007 @ 3:07pm

Re: Parents are the Law for Minors
Or you could just grow up an realise that violent and sexual games don't do shit to your child's development. *especially* if they're already 14. Not 8.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
bradley stewart, 7 Aug 2007 @ 4:54pm

POLITICIANS DOING DOPY THINGS IM SHOCKED!
FOLKS IF YOU HAVE EVER LISTENED TO ANY OF THESE HEARINGS WHERE POLITICIANS YACK ABOUT PROTECTING CHILDREN IT BECOMES CLEAR VERY QUICKLY THESE THINGS HAVE NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN AT ALL. ALL THESE PEOPLE ARE DOING IS PANDERING TO THEIR WACK JOB SUPPORTERS. THEN EVEN IF THE DUMB PIECE OF LEGISLATION DOESNT STAND UP TO LEGAL STANDARDS WHICH BY THE WAY THEY UNDERSTOOD BEFORE THEY STARTED THE WHOLE IDIOTIC PROCESS THEY CAN SAY TO THEIR SUPPORTERS WELL OK IT DIDNT WORK BUT WELL WE WILL KEEP TRYING. JUST ANOTHER GREAT WAY THEY HAVE FOUND TO WASTE BOTH OUR TIME AND MONEY. BEST REGARDS BRADLEY STEWART
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTR1701, 8 Aug 2007 @ 6:06am

Re: Movies
> Something I've never really understood,
> is why it's unconstitutional to ban the
> sale of certain games to minors, but not
> unconstitutional to do the same for movies

Because no one has done it with movies (other than hardcore porn movies). The rating system for mainsteam movies (G, PG, R, etc.) is entirely voluntary. The studio/theater industry voluntarily set up the rating system as a service to its customers. So while a given theater might refuse to sell a ticket to a 14-year-old for an R-rated movie, there's no law that requires them to do so. Indeed, if a theater *did* sell tickets to kids against the rating system, they couldn't be charged or fined by the government in any way. And if the goverment passed a law to enforce it, that law would be unconstitutional just like these video game laws are.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
BTR1701, 8 Aug 2007 @ 6:09am

Re: Playboy
> If this is unconstitutional, why is keeping
> Playboy out of the hands of the under 18
> crowd legal?

Cite me the law that makes it a crime to sell a Playboy to someone under 18. [Hint: there isn't one. Retailers *choose* to enforce that policy to avoid controversy but there's no law forcing them to.]
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Peter, 7 Sep 2007 @ 6:36am

Which states?
Michigan, Minnesota, Louisiana, Oklahoma, Illinois, Washington.

What are the other 4 states that had laws banning the sale of violent games?

I guess California makes 11.
[ link to this | view in thread ]