Brown v. the EMA: Was Their Heart Was in the Right Place?

We recently saw a landmark decision by the United States Supreme Court. Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, a law focused on punishing game retailers for selling or renting over “mature” games to minors. This kind of censorship angered the gaming community, but was there some good behind the law’s intent?

Read Full Story >>
The story is too old to be commented.
TheStonedSheep2574d ago

I genuinely think that these laws are created by those who want to protect children but fail to understand technology.

A lot of gamers overreact when they here about regulation because they equate it to censorship (see: Australia) but that isn't true, just take the European system of example.

smikey11232573d ago

That was exactly what I was going for TheStonedSheep, thanks.

jmare2573d ago

The law was created by people who assumed that apathetic parents weren't buying violent games for their children in the first place.

The retarded thing about the law was that it wasn't illegal to give kids violent video games, just to sell kids violent video games. The law was saying, in essence, that video games are so harmful to kids that we must control their access to these games, but not really because they can still play them.

Also, a lot of people are assuming that this would only affect M rated games, it wouldn't. The way the law was worded a lot of T rated games would probably have been deemed "violent" and then be restricted. The impact of this would have adversely affected the industry.

Hicken2573d ago

Simply put, it was a legal method to take the pressure off parents for not parenting their children.

I sold about six copies of Black Ops and three or four copies of MW2 today. Only one of the people was buying it for themselves. The others were all for children under the age of 15. In all but two cases, I let the parents know what was in the game: in one case, the family were regulars who already knew the game's content; in the other case, I was cut off before I could get three words in.

I run into far more of the latter than the former.

In most companies, though it may not be as well enforced as it should be, the consequence for selling an M rated game to a child under 16 is loss of your job. This law would go further, making it a crime, and that's really not necessarily, because that would be telling people what's good for them in media, an area the government DEFINITELY SHOULD NOT tread upon.

I'm all for protecting kids. I love my nephews and would shelter them from the world if I could... and if it was good for them. But it's not. So I let them learn, not on their own, but with supervision, just as my parents taught me. My sister does the same. I have no doubt that they'll be playing M-rated games before they're 17, but they will at least know something about the content of those games from the adults around them.