The reason Mr. P is disabled is because a small psycho attacked him and three friends with an aluminum baseball bat two and a half years ago. His left temple was crushed and destroyed, he is now held together with titanium. The reason I am saying anything about this is the D.A would not press charges against their assailant because they "didn't have enough evidence." This lunatic is out wandering around still. My man had to learn to speak, walk and feed himself all over again. Our judicial system is fucked. Sometimes, it works. Oftentimes, it doesn't. Maybe the guy with the bat played too many violent games...(sarcasm intended).
This. Everything else aside: I can't believe that a debate about whether a form of art/entertainment deserved First Amendment protections actually had to go to the Supreme Court. What the hell is this country thinking? Jesus. There is already "something being done," as others in the thread mentioned - it's the rating system. The gaming industry actually polices remarkably well. Most of the accidental sales of M-rated games to minors and the like are not the fault of the ESRB (which is very clear about what their ratings mean) but individual retailers who aren't on the ball. Places like Wal-Mart, though, won't even carry AO or RP titles, and are very strict about games rated M. That link is the first Google result for "ESRB Ratings", and if you don't have the patience to do a two-second Google search, you probably shouldn't be having kids, is my gut feeling. This is of course ignoring the question of whether or not violent video games turn people into psycho killers.
Actually, the Supreme Court actually often is OK with different First Amendment standards with regards to minors. This wasn't an issue of "Are video games protected by the First Amendment?" and to frame it as such is misleading. It was about weighing two competing concerns: the acknowledged First Amendment rights of art, and the special circumstances surrounding minors. No one seriously denied that the First Amendment covered video games.
That pretty much sums up my viewpoint on the matter. First Amendment don't mean much if people have to be protected from it. And yes, that includes minors.
I'm not sure I'm ok with hardcore pornography being sold to 11 year-olds without parental consent. Which is an extreme example, but mostly to show that I do have a line where I think the First Amendment rights of minors should be compromised. I'm just not sure where it is.
In my opinion all bets were off once Two GIrls One Cup went viral. That's it, it's a wrap. It is now officially on.
Sometimes a game is just a game and a psycho kid is just a psycho kid. I am a single mom who has never played video games. I bought games for my son (who is now 16) based on the ratings because it was the easiest way to make a decision. His dad wanted to be the cool parent so he bought our son games that were rated M as young as 12 or 13. My son played a few of them a few times but had no real interest. You can find him playing soccer, swimming at his friend's house, running track, etc. most days. My point is that he is a normal kid who does normal things. I am starting to believe the kids that go psycho would have been psycho anyway, with or without video games, much like my son is normal anyway even having been exposed to them.