US

Supreme Court Upholds Violent Video Games Sales to Kids

WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court says California cannot ban the rental or sale of violent video games to children.

The high court agreed Monday with a federal court‘s decision to throw out California’s ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento said the law violated minors’ rights under the First and Fourteenth amendments.

The law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games to anyone under 18. Retailers who violated the act would have been fined up to $1,000 for each infraction.

The court on a 7-2 vote said the law was unconstitutional.

More than 46 million American households have at least one video-game system, with the industry bringing in at least $18 billion in 2010.

Comments (93)

1 2
  • Scrubpuppy
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 1:17pm

    As an avid gamer, this discussion comes up a lot in our culture. We believe its on the parents to do the right thing, and that the government doesn’t need to step in. Jack Thompson the ambulance chaser tried to pin violence on video games, thankfully he was eventually disbarred.
    Unfortunately, people only reference the video games like Duke Nukem or Grand Theft Auto, but never games that are educational. Take Sid’s Civilization Series or Empire: Total War which lets you replay the battles of the American Revolution. Those games are never hailed for their educational aspect, although playing through Bunker Hill is still one of the most epic game experiences to date. It’s certainly odd that liberals are the ones trying to stop this though, seeing as most video gamers have a liberal bias.

    Report Post »  
  • DEF1
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 1:03pm

    I am an avid gamer at the ripe old age of 36 I play alot of FPS (First Person Shooter) games. I play many of them with my 12 year old step son. He has been taught the difference between games and the real world. He is trained in real gun safety by his father who is serving in Afghanistan and gets to talk to his dad and play these games online with him. Its up to parents to raise their children responsibly and to teach them right from wrong.The courts made the right decision here….

    Report Post » DEF1  
    • Scrubpuppy
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 1:24pm

      Conservative video gamers? Its more likely than you think!

      Report Post »  
  • FaithfulFriend
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 12:58pm

    It’s disgusting how the left promises progressive notions as growth while restricting, contracting & banning its way backwards. Next step for CA courts… don’t ban airsoft.

    Report Post » FaithfulFriend  
  • harumph
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 12:47pm

    They keep trying to get a foothold. Once they’re able to set the precedent, Katie bar the door.

    Report Post » harumph  
  • Augie4
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 12:41pm

    I had a thing for a bunny rabbit a few years back. What with Obama in office, I think we’ll be heading out to Vegas soon to make it legal.

    Report Post »  
  • Rob_M
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 12:40pm

    Shouldn’t they be working on their outright declaration they are ignoring immigration laws first?

    Report Post » Rob_M  
  • ptcamn
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 12:35pm

    Just my two cents here: since the mid 1990′s the video game industry established, entirely on it’s own, the ESRB (Entertainment Software Ratings Board). It is funded by the game industry on its own and rates games according to age and content. Unlike the film industry’s system which puts the rating in the same color text, with a small font, and lost between a lot of other text in the back of the box, the ESRB rating is a simple, large code placed in the front of the box. It has worked great since its implementation and clearly defines what games are for kids, teenagers, Young adults, Mature, or adults only.

    Retailers, on the other hand, don’t carry AO (adult only games). You need to look online or some small shop lost somewhere to find them. Considering that AO games are usually foreign, these cost even more due to the import stat. Even then, these are limited to PC games as console makers refuse to license AO games at all. Even then, the games’ industry as a whole is pretty good in filtering offensive content.

    The CA law was more insidious than what it sounds on the top. Not only it was attempting to replace the private sector’s own rating and control (the gov knows best after all- ain’t that right?), but also to determine what’s best for your kids. This law was akin to the laws against Happy Meals and such that take the parent and the private sector out of the way in favor of more government bureaucracy.

    The most dangerous thing, had the law been up

    Report Post »  
  • numbers
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 12:34pm

    One strike against Nanny State government. That said, many parents today are AWOL when it comes to what the kids are doing; whether its a violent game or a steamy movie for pre-teens, or, being left too long alone in the tub, in the pool, or anywhere. Stupid people loose their rights when they don’t pay full time and attention to their kids or in other areas like their driving, their finances, etc. They got a pass this time.

    Report Post »  
  • beachmom
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 12:34pm

    This is a good thing. Every time the govt. takes a parental responsibility away from parents, the parents get used to it and then don‘t pay attention and it’s just one more piece of liberty gone.
    We’ve seen it happen with govt. run schools.

    Report Post »  
  • LB
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 12:31pm

    Now they need to reverse the “Happy Meal” ban. would that not fall under the same ammendments??

    Report Post » LB  
  • nomercy63
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 12:26pm

    Excuse me, Excuse me! Oh ye high court we are having just a few really big issues happening around the country and this ain’t one of them!!!!

    Report Post »  
  • Bill Wallace
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 12:18pm

    Interesting…and wrong.

    This is a good mix of content vs. conduct for free speech rights. The content of video games may rise to a strict scrutiny test, but you actuall “play” video games, which falls into conduct, and restrictions are easier to be placed.

    Report Post »  
  • This_Individual
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:20am

    Good job! Now it‘s time for California’s Libertarians to take Sacramento. I will continue to fight for my state as I do for my country.

    Report Post »  
  • His Lamb is Satanic
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:16am

    The supreme court will not hear about Barry’s fake birth certificate, but WILL hear about video games? What a bunch of commie cowards! Heads on sticks! Those games turn the users into pornheads and queers. The supreme court should be executed.

    Report Post » His Lamb is Satanic  
  • His Lamb is Satanic
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:08am

    The Cal supreme court has an agenda to hand the state to Mexico on a silver platter. They are communists and liberal kool aid drinkers.

    Report Post » His Lamb is Satanic  
    • His Lamb is Satanic
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:14am

      The US supreme court has been stacked with obamaheads, La Raza enthusiasts, and communists. Cut the head off the snake…NOW!!

      Report Post » His Lamb is Satanic  
    • let us prey
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:15am

      Give it to Mexico and then wall it off. It has already been taken over, what is the difference?

      Report Post » let us prey  
  • jmootispaw
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:51am

    Outstanding ruling! Keep the government out of the decisions, even bad ones that people make!

    Report Post »  
  • jungle J
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:50am

    mentally ill parents are the problem

    Report Post »  
  • moonpeace
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:49am

    Please, Americans…we cannot allow Obama another four years. Just look at what has occurred in his first term. Another term will destroy us for sure. It isn’t personal, and it isn’t because he is black. It is because he is wrong with his policies, taking us further and further toward the far left…leading us toward open borders, strict gun control, welfare and entitlements for everyone, gay marriages, which will eventually lead to marriages between humans and animals. The far left is just insane with their ways. We must return to a conservative style government, and begin taking care of our own country first. Enjoy your day, Americans.

    Report Post » moonpeace  
    • MrButcher
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:56am

      Marriages between humans and animals, huh?

      Only a conservitive would think this will be a likely outcome of legalized gay marriage. It says more about those who bring it up than those they try to blame it on.

      I guess we need a Constitutional Amendment banning beastiality just to make sure Red State Voter Billy Ray Redneck doesn’t leave his fat wife to elope with Bessie the Sexy Cow so they can share healthcare, legal rights and have their own pride parade in downtown Waterloo, Iowa.

      I think America can handle, if it has to, another term of Obama.

      Report Post » MrButcher  
    • atombomb
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 12:44pm

      By your logic, straight marriages should be illegal, as they lead to gay marriage, which leads to animal marriages. Also, can you please cite a source on the claim that animal marriages are the consequence of gay marriages, or did you pull that out of your ass?

      Report Post » atombomb  
    • SacredHonor1776
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 2:06pm

      Actually strangely enough there are organizations fighting for bestiality, polygamy, incest, and pedophilia rights. Back in 2006 Denmark even legalized bestiality, and I think it was 2008 they had the first man/dog wedding (although it’s not yet honored by the government).

      It’s not something that conservatives worry about, but definitely something several groups are trying to push as ‘civil rights’ thing.

      In Canada last year, or earlier this year and expert told the parliament that pedophile was a natural sexual orientation like homosexuality and lesbianism, that someone was born with. Their was a debate on over if they should get equality rights as well. Although the parliament decided that it was sick and that they shouldn’t be honored civil liberties even if was natural sexual identity.

      But ya these types of debates are coming up all over the world. If it became standardized in Europe, you could bet your bottom dollar that the UN would start accusing US law for being backwards, for not honoring equal rights to these various ‘orientations’.

      Report Post »  
  • Disabledvet
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:47am

    Parents need to learn to say NO, I do not want the government to direct what my kids or grandkids can or can not buy or see, that should be left up to me and my kids in the case of my grandkids.

    BE THE PARENT

    Report Post »  
    • HK-UMP_45ACP
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:54am

      Please do not preach, you are as bad a California. I agree with you, I just don’t need your ALL CAPS life instructions, Michelle!

      Report Post » MONICNE  
  • conservative_teacher
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:41am

    Good for the Supreme Court! This is a victory for liberty, folks. But…wait for it…here come all the posts from the bible thumping “small government”, so-called “conservatives” bashing this decision. Don’t do it–don’t be a social and political hypocrite!

    Report Post » conservative_teacher  
    • HK-UMP_45ACP
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:57am

      The Supreme Court costs too much, we need to remove about 4 of the judges – going Last-In, First Out!

      Report Post » MONICNE  
  • SpankDaMonkey
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:40am

    .
    Kill,
    Kill,
    Kill Stright to the Group W bench for you LMAO……

    Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
  • powhatan
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:40am

    The decision to let kids play violemt games is up to their parents…..so I agree with the S. Court.

    Report Post » powhatan  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:56am

      Yea, lets drop the minimum legal drinking age while we’re at it. If parents want their 6 year old to chug Budweiser then let them. We are dealing with kids here, not legal adults. Government should have no say in what “adults” who play video games buy but, minors are regulated all over the place and rightfully so. Want to let kids smoke cigarettes too? Should they be able to buy porn? A lot of these games are nothing short of porn.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • SmallGovernment
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:04am

      Powhatan…are you in the Powhatan tribe, or just live in Powhatan, VA?

      Report Post »  
    • bospopp
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:09am

      @Gonzo: I play these types of games. I have children. The next ban would be for all households with children. Where does it end? Look at smoking! (I do not smoke, and think it’s disgusting) but you can’t smoke in public, some states in your car, some states in your home with children inside….. see where this is going?

      Report Post »  
    • Gonzo
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:24am

      bospopp
      I the same exact argument could be made for adult videos. Some things are for adults and not kids. I’m not talking about Donkey Kong here. Some of that stuff is adult oriented and that’s what should be regulated.

      Report Post » Gonzo  
    • SacredHonor1776
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 1:31pm

      Gonzo, they can’t regulate video games anymore than they can regulate the rated R movies or harlequin novels people expose themselves to. Banning it from a home with children goes too far. Parents should have the right to decide how they do parenting.

      Once the state steps in too far, it’s overstep of big gov progressivism and control.

      Report Post »  
    • SacredHonor1776
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 1:39pm

      http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/168812/detail/
      Gonzo, you start banning what people can watch, read, or play in their own homes it’s no better than any other form of big government progressive.

      Should rated R movies be regulated in homes? Should harlequin novels be banned?

      I was watching some tv show, 1000 ways to die, which was probably mote violent than even some of the over the top violent video games. Truly horrible stuff. But I would never attempt to ban that. I’d rather refuse to watch it.

      Report Post »  
  • let us prey
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:37am

    This is small potatoes. Cali sucks and so do their law makers.
    Be a parent and make the rules of what is acceptable in your home. Lazy arses wake up and take some responsibility for yourselves. The supreme ct or congress should not dictate or decide for you.

    Report Post » let us prey  
    • Kerby Clark
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:58am

      Kind Little Note to you–off topic — you spilled the word “pray” wrong again – it was on another page that way, too.

      Report Post » MONICNE  
    • Nobamazone
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 4:36pm

      maybe he/she wants that “incorrect” spelling… ?
      out looking for prey?

      Report Post » Nobamazone  
  • Aaron in Polk County
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:37am

    Video Games don’t Kill People, Guns do! (lmao)

    I will go ahead and crawl under my desk for the incoming I am about to receive.

    Report Post » Aaron in Polk County  
    • nacilbuper
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:43am

      Gun Control is using both hands when shooting.

      Report Post » nacilbuper  
    • randy
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:50am

      Go and and Crawl… I just hope and pray most people here on the Blaze just ignore you.

      Report Post » randy  
    • HK-UMP_45ACP
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:52am

      If it was not an $18 Billion Industry, might have been different. If it was real guns, never would have happened in the first place.

      Report Post » MONICNE  
    • SmallGovernment
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:53am

      That’s why i keep my guns in a safe… so they don‘t go around killing people when I’m not watching them.

      Report Post »  
    • Dahart
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:59am

      Silly rabbit….guns don’t kill people …..people kill people

      I have never seen a gun just jump from were it rest and start firing. Someone must pull the trigger…even in case of accidental firing there was a human elmemet involved

      Report Post » Dahart  
    • Ronko
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:37am

      Your half right video games don‘t cause violence that is true but Guns don’t either. The person who pulls the trigger is the truly violent one, as he made the decision to pull the trigger.

      Report Post »  
  • Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}
    Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:36am

    While I may not support violent video games; the fact is the Supreme Court here made the right decision in this matter – along with the matter of even more government control in the lives of the American family, and how they seek to make even more choices in place of the parents.

    Report Post » Snowleopard {gallery of cat folks}  
    • Oh, God!
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:43am

      Agree with you Snow, I do not support these violent games. It is the parents responsibility to monitor what their kids are doing and not doing, not the government. The problem is, many parents don’t, my sister being one of them. Her choice, not mine.

      Report Post » Oh, God!  
    • SpankDaMonkey
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:45am

      .
      The kids need the training. I mean who‘s gonna fly Obama’s Drone’s?……..

      Report Post » SpankDaMonkey  
    • AzDebi
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:48am

      Yep, Agree with SNOW!

      Report Post » AzDebi  
    • momprayn
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:49am

      Yes, I agree. There’s a very long list of the things that are very bad to do, not healthy, etc. So I’m glad, I guess, about this ruling. They don’t work anyway – like Prohibition (banning alcohol) — it was a colossal failure & even caused more problems. This country needs to work more on healthy families with morals they actually practice, etc. as the Founders suggested. They said it is needed to keep a democratic republic going. Sadly, we’ve been going downhill for decades now in rebellion to all that. We reap what we sow.

      Report Post »  
    • HK-UMP_45ACP
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 10:50am

      If you are old enough to fight and die for your country (17) you should be able to play any video game you want. If you are old enough to get married (14) it is too late.

      Report Post » MONICNE  
    • DrFrost
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:23am

      I think it‘s the parents decision and I’m not, in any way, in support of the nanny state. So I support the court’s decision here… BUT… I really don’t understand their explanation. This should be about parent’s rights, not the rights of the children. There‘s a long list of activities we don’t allow children to engage in… and it seems the reasoning the court has used in this instance could be applied to all of them. That makes no sense!

      Report Post »  
    • Gold Coin & Economic News
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:25am

      Don’t play video games at all, but I’ve seen lots of previews and promotions of these things and they are bad and any parent that lets their under 18 children play the most violent ones needs to have their head examined.

      Report Post » Gold Coin & Economic News  
    • Khthulhu
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:27am

      I agree that the court has made the right decision here. It is up to the parents to decide what is too violent for kids to see, play, watch, hear. This is akin to banning certain music. Congress tried on several occasions to ban music with explicit or violent lyrics because it was argued that kids were being influenced by it. The government regulators (led by then 2nd lady Tipper Gore) were proven wrong. Same deal here. Besides, schools are already banning such schoolyard games like tag and dodgeball because they say it’s too violent or children can get hurt. Well guess what. Children are going to get hurt. It’s a fact of life. These games teach kids to socialize. Everything in moderation. 1 hour of Xbox, 2 hours of outside play.

      Report Post » Khthulhu  
    • Dustyluv
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:31am

      Correct ruling. Now if the kid goes and kills someone because of violent video games…THE PARENTS SHOULD BE CHARGED WITH MURDER….problem solved after the first news story…

      Freedom has a price. Make the parents pay that price.

      Report Post »  
    • lane829
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:32am

      I will make it simple.
      “As laws grow liberty dies.”
      Parent’s job, not the gubernmint’s.

      Report Post »  
    • Cerealface
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:33am

      Old wind bags don’t like violent video games?
      Who didn’t see that coming?

      Glad San Fran also thinks preteen kids have enough money to buy happy meals with toys in them.

      Report Post » Cerealface  
    • Cerealface
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:34am

      You better support the unbanning of toys in happy meals too.

      Report Post » Cerealface  
    • Ronko
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:35am

      Good decision by the supreme court. This law would’ve opened up a whole bunch of floodgates, glad that’s not going to happen. The ESRB does a good job rating games and it’s up to the parents to decide if they should get the game for their kid. That where the real power should be not the state.

      Report Post »  
    • Hephzibah
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:54am

      I agree with you.

      Report Post » Hephzibah  
    • 1TrueOne55
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:57am

      When I used to work in a Computer Retail Chain now defunct shareware was on the market and some people would sometimes ask me about Doom or Castle Wolfenstein and if it was appropriate for “Johnny” at age 8 or 9. I would say that there was a lot of gratuitous violence and bloody graphics and if it were my child I would wait until they were older to get it. But as you might guess I could never really know if the advice was followed after they left the store or come back later and bought those games.

      I believe that informing parents is the only way they can make a really good decision.

      Report Post » 1TrueOne55  
    • Rogue
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:58am

      I’ve always found it funny that California has problems with video game violence, yet violence on television is not a concern. If you watch any movie on network TV, they go out of thier way to edit any cuss words, but leave in scenes of people being shot, blown up, tortured, etc. No outrage over Rated R movies being available to children of all ages either.

      I completely disagree with the government restricting any type of legal product or service, but at least I would have an ounce of respect if CA stood up to the TV and music industry with the same standards.

      Report Post » Rogue  
    • FlatFoot
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 11:59am

      Kids are subjected to displays and even participation of ‘violence’ to some degree each and every day whether it be books, TV, movies, the internet, or even school lessons and pee-wee to high school football. The Justices are further correct in their assessment of children’s stories and nursery rhymes. They are filled with violence and even torture. The entire Harry Potter series of books and especially the series of movies are filled with diabolical treachery and violence… and parents LOVE Harry Potter for their kids. Kids under 18 yrs old are to be parented. Period. By being ‘parented’ they are protected from exposure to gore and violence too intense for children if the parents are diligent and give a darn. We do not need yet more laws and more bureaucracy to do the job of parents.

      For once, the courts don’t take the route of the Nanny-State. Now if they’d only apply the same route where grown ups are concerned. That would be something worth celebrating.

      Report Post » FlatFoot  
    • Mhockey1505
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 12:37pm

      Read the dissent by Clarence Thomas. They’re not banning the sales of these games, they’re banning the sale to minors. Parents could still go and buy them for their children (mine bought them within reason). I’m not PC and like these games, and even played them as a minor. But to me, this is just like pornography alcohol and tobacco.

      And writing this, it makes me realize – with this decision, what really stops the porn industry to challenge under the same guidlines? You can’t make a case for one and a separate case for the other.

      Report Post »  
    • AOL_REFUGEE
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 12:41pm

      For a wild and free, wacky liberal state, California sure wants to put a lot of restrictions on its people.

      Report Post » AOL_REFUGEE  
    • red_white_blue2
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 12:45pm

      Agreed..its disheartening to think of a minor viewing some of those games, but they did defend the constitution. Now it is up to the parents to do their jobs!

      Report Post » red_white_blue2  
    • SacredHonor1776
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 1:07pm

      I enjoy violent video games. Albeit I prefer those with historical theme. I would fight tooth and nail if someone tried to ban or censor the
      . But I would not give them to my children. That is my duty to protect them.

      Report Post »  
    • Cause4Liberty
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 1:11pm

      Usually violent video games have a “Mature” rating… Which means it’s for the age groups of 17+… It is the PARENTS job to make sure their Lil youngins are not participating in these games… I play CoD and there is kids as young as 5 playing online in an ADULT like atmosphere… Blame PARENTS

      Report Post » Cause4Liberty  
    • SacredHonor1776
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 1:14pm

      Violet video games are no more the problem than violent movies, or violent music, or violent books. Or hunting/target practice. Their were violent humans long before any of these technologies came about. The ones who are violent are already mentally unstable to begin with. Infact some studies seem to show their may have been a higher rate of violent crimes before video games than their were in the last decade or so. Violent video games may have a therapeutic affect on some individuals.

      Report Post »  
    • SacredHonor1776
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 1:21pm

      Btw many of the violent crimes are committed by people that don’t actually play games, and are often antisocial in nature. Correlation does not equal causation, but it’s still something important to look into.

      Report Post »  
    • SacredHonor1776
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 1:25pm

      http://www.milkandcookies.com/link/168812/detail/
      Penn and Teller’s show actually had a great episode concerning violent video games and hypocrisy of those trying to ban them. Thanks Penn for your libertarian perspective.

      Report Post »  
    • JRook
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 3:22pm

      @HK-UMP_45ACP Agreed you should be able to drink a beer. If your adult enough to defend the laws of this country, then the majority of them should not restrict you right to choose your own lifestyle.

      Report Post »  
    • scarebear83
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 4:42pm

      I’m surprised no one looked at this from another point of view. If kids are allowed to purchase or rent violent video games due to their first amendment rights then who is to say pornography should only be sold to those who are 18? Why allow only those who are 21 to drink or even those who are 18 to buy cigarettes? Shouldn’t minors also be allowed to purchase these things due to their first amendment rights? If the parents want their kids to have these video games then let the parents buy them. Don’t make easier access for kids.

      Report Post » scarebear83  
    • scguitar
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 4:58pm

      This was a wrong decision! I disagree with you who say it was correct. The first amendment applies to congress only, not the states, and the 14th amendment does not put the first amendment on the states, that is a misrepresentation and not the original intent of the Amendment. This case really has nothing to do with the constitution at all. California should be able to have this law if they want to

      Report Post »  
    • foobear
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 7:59pm

      I grew up playing Super Mario Brothers, and yet I don’t try to stomp on every turtle I see.

      Teenagers are old enough to join the military, so they’re old enough to play violent video games. They’re old enough to get married, they’re old enough to have sex.

      We need to stop treating teenagers like they’re 6 year olds.

      Report Post » foobear  
    • the hawk
      Posted on June 27, 2011 at 8:59pm

      MINOR’S cONSTITIONAL RIGHTS, FREEDOM OF SPEACH AND EXPRESSION ?
      BET HUSTLER’S LOVIN THIS RULING !

      Report Post »  
    • lostintx
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 8:06am

      So, using your argument, kids should also be able to buy guns as this right is also protected by the constitution?

      Report Post »  
    • V-MAN MACE
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 8:19am

      The Supreme Court made the right decision on this issue.

      Nevertheless, I get so sick of stupid immature little kids running around like chickens with their heads cut off in Call of Duty Black Ops, killing members of their own team in order to mess up your “killstreak” or stop you from “camping” (strategic positioning), usually meaning your team loses pathetically…

      Report Post » V-MAN MACE  
    • TomFerrari
      Posted on June 28, 2011 at 9:42am

      Another DITTO for snow on this one.

      Report Post » TomFerrari  
1 2

Sign In To Post Comments! Sign In

Sign Up For Our Newsletter!

Glenn Beck Radio

Listen to Glenn Beck 24/7 Listen Now
Restoring Love