So, it's a free speech thing. And in order to be banned, (not protected under 'free speech') something has to be clearly defined and obscene. The Supreme Court felt that it did not meet those requirements. "California’s Act does not adjust the boundaries of an existing category of unprotected speech to ensure that a definition designed for adults is not uncritically applied to children. Instead, the State wishes to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children. Unless California can demonstrate that it passes strict scrutiny, i.e., it is justified by a compelling government interest and is narrowly drawn to serve that interest. California cannot meet that standard."
So the law was too vague and it could not prove causality (that playing violent games made kids violent).
So what? Why should we care? Well, for starters, video games made more money than movies. $10.5 Billion vs. $9.87 Billion. And second, video games are pervasive. You can get them almost anywhere. (Did you know that 7-11 sells video games?)
Now, I hear you saying, "Don't video games have a rating system?" Yes. Yes they do. And it's voluntary. Companies don't have to do that. It's like the Comics Code Authority. The industry hopes that if they self-regulate they won't have laws like the one passed in California, because they like to roll around in their oodles of money, and restrictive laws would make that harder to do.
But, unless (until) a more narrowly defined or better researched law gets passed, how are we supposed to protect our children? By being parents you lazy bags of excrement. All the parents and adults getting upset about their kids playing violent video games SHOULDN'T BY THEM FOR THEIR KIDS. OR GIVE THEM THE MONEY FOR THE VIDEO GAMES. Stop asking the government to parent by proxy.
