“When an industry trade group files a federal lawsuit to defend a child’s constitutional rights, the alarm bells should be deafening. It is hard to imagine a more cynical proposition. Sadly, today’s ruling proves the United States Supreme Court heard the video game industry loud and clear, but turned a deaf ear to concerned parents. The Court has provided children with a Constitutionally-protected end-run on parental authority.
“This ruling replaces the authority of parents with the economic interests of the video game industry. With no fear of any consequence for violating the video game industry’s own age restriction guidelines, retailers can now openly, brazenly sell games with unspeakable violence and adult content even to the youngest of children.
“The carefully-worded California statute would not have interfered in any way with the rights of the creators of adult games or the adults who wish to buy them; and in fact, it would not interfere with parents who wanted to purchase such a game for their children. Rather, the measure only would have prevented an unaccompanied minor child from buying or renting the product.
“Countless independent studies confirm what most parents instinctively know to be true: repeated exposure to violent video games has a harmful and long-term effect on children. Despite these troubling findings, video game manufacturers have fought tooth and nail for the ‘right’ to line their pockets at the expense of America’s children. Today, the Supreme Court sided with them and against parents.
“We call on the Entertainment Merchants Association to redouble its efforts for increased enforcement of the industry’s age-based vending restrictions. The Federal Trade Commission and the PTC’s own ‘Secret Shopper’ campaigns have routinely demonstrated an abysmal failure rate for video game retailers to uphold the industry’s own age-based restrictions. With the exception of GameStop, many in the video game industry appear to be either unwilling or unable to prevent the sale of M-rated games to kids. Now with no threat of consequence for failure, we are concerned that the self-regulatory efforts will be violated in even greater numbers than they already are. We will be monitoring this very closely.
“The Parents Television Council is proud of its unwavering support for California State Senator Leland Yee’s leadership and legislative efforts to protect children. We will continue to use all the resources within our power to call out unscrupulous retailers. If the federal courts won’t stand for parents, then we hope the court of public opinion will.”
Patriot vows to continue to stand up against Corporate America's murderous rampage
“Unfortunately, the majority of the Supreme Court once again put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children,” said the law’s author, Senator Leland Yee (D-San Francisco). “As a result of their decision, Wal-Mart and the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids’ mental health and the safety of our community. It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children.”
Yee also praised Justice Stephen Breyer, one of the more liberal justices on the Court and a San Francisco resident, who wrote the dissenting opinion.
“Justice Breyer, in his dissenting opinion, clearly understood the need to protect our children from the harmful effects of excessively violent video games and to give parents a tool in raising healthy kids,” said Yee.
Parents beg for help to save their children from the violence
“I looked over my son’s shoulder as he played a game with young girls being struck by a shovel as they beg for mercy … then the player can pour gasoline over them, set them on fire and pee on them,” says Gladys Stone, a single mom with a 14-year-old son. “That’s disgusting. I would love to have a law that I could point to and say, ‘Sorry Zeke, it’s against the law,’ ” she says.
...
Several parents highlight incongruities in the government’s position. Justice Stephen Breyer noted one in his dissent: “What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with … a nude woman, while protecting a sale … of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?”
Sam Singer, who runs his own public relations firm in San Francisco, says, “It's ironic that the government can put warning labels on cigarettes and ban their sales to minors, but it cannot do the same with overtly violent and dangerous video games.”
How much will crime rise now that violent video games are allowed?
"That's like the tobacco industry saying there is no harm coming from smoking," said Tim Winter, president of the parents Television Council, which got the now-overturned ban on the books. "It is absolutely rubbish. There are more than 3,000 studies who have documented a relationship between a child's intake of violent media and their behavior."
Some parents were in favor of the ban.
"To me, there's a lot of violence in those games, so I would really like to take them out of the markets," Agoura Hills resident Karla Chismar said.
Elementary school principal Susan Rubinstein said parents should avoid exposing their children to such games since kids tend to imitate things they see.
