The ESRB is for what again?

Tonight I saw a story on digg.com that talked about how a judge declared that a law restricting the sale of violent video games to minors is unconstitutional.  Now, in the great state of California, I guess it's okay for minors to buy whatever games they want.  Having worked at a game retailer, I know that parents don't pay nearly enough attention to what their kids are playing.  Mature-rated titles are going to be sold to anyone.

While I agree that the responsibility belongs to parents as to what their children play, I disagree with taking away the one restriction that tries to pick up where a lot of parents slack off.  If we think about why it's unconstitutional to discriminate by age, we can get rid of the MPAA as well.  If kids can buy whatever game they want, why can't they go to whatever movie they want?  Buy whichever CD they choose?  Have a beer?  Smoke a cigarette?

Sadly, if an M game comes out with nudity (most likely even that of a statue, as was the case with Oblivion), it will be restricted in sales.  So I guess that the only way to keep violent games out of the hands of kids is to but the naked human body in the game somewhere.   If you look at the ruling by the judge (available in PDF format on the interwebs), the definition of violent games was explored.  One of the approved activities is torture.  Dismemberment was another.  Again, I cringe in embarrassment that we, as a country, endorse graphic violence, but blush and turn away when a woman unbuttons one too many buttons.

Posted by Agonizing_Gas on Wed Aug 8, 2007 @ 2:15 am EDT | 9 Comments