Out of curiosity, has anyone proved that violent video games have an impact on psychology? I've seen arguments from both sides......

If you want to know if viewing violent media has an impact on someone, the answer is yes. If you want to know what exactly the impact is, well, that is too nuanced to answer in any satisfying degree.

Violence and aggression are complex behaviors that are not understood too well. Trying to tie them to a single or repeated exposure to something is just asking too much of psychology at this point.

[quote name='kryotech' timestamp='1309185968' post='4828263']As you can see here, the California law that would have restricted the sale of violent video games (defined as any that allows the player the choice to kill, maim, dismember, or sexually assault an image of a human being) to children, and would require that these games have a label on them

Are children allowed to buy adult-rated movies (e.g. Saw) in California? Can children go buy porno films in California?

If yes, then this decision makes sense as you're just being consistent.
If not, what makes games/films such that classifications should only apply to one and not the other?

We've always had classification stickers on films and games here, so it seems pretty normal to me.
Kids can't buy alcohol - they have to get their parents to buy a it for them. Kids can't buy cigarettes - they have to get their parents to buy a them for them.
Kids can't buy porno - they have to get their parents to buy a them for them. Kids can't buy 18+ movies - they have to get their parents to buy a them for them.
So going by this status quo here, it makes sense for me kids to have to get their parents to buy their 18+ games for them too.

[edit]I read up a bit on it and it seems retails can voluntarily stop selling things to minors, but SCOTUS is stopping legislators from making it law, due to these restrictions being a violation of free speech.
If that's the case, aren't these retailer's "we don't see to minors" policies also a violation of free speech?
[/quote]

Not quite how it works in the United States.

There are very few forms of speech (communications, including media) that are not protected by the constitution.

The Constitution is very straightforward on the matter. "Congress shall make no law ... abridging the freedom of speech". The Constitution also extends these restrictions to the individual states, so the California state law is subject to the restriction as well.



There are only a few items that are not protected.

Speech that presents a "clear and present danger", such as shouting "Fire!" in a theater, is excluded. However, dangerous speech that does not present a clear and present danger, such as books about making explosives, are protected from the law. Child porn is considered part of this this category, since to produce it the child is placed in obvious danger. Congress and states can make laws about speech that presents a clear and present danger; doing so is often challenged in the courts, and the law must be very carefully and clearly stated to survive.

Speech that is entirely based on "prurient interest", such as porn, restricted from minors. It is not restricted for adults. Congress can make laws restricting the availability extremely sexually explicit content for minors. They cannot regulate sexually explicit but non-prurient content, such as health books describing or depicting sex. They also cannot regulate explicit but non-prurient movies or other media.

Political speech has some exclusions, but only to prevent interference with free government. For example, the law can forbid placing political advertising close to election places, or restrict protesters with reasonable time, place, and manner requirements. Organized protests near other gatherings are often subject to this type of restriction; they can be limited to protesting within a designated zone so it doesn't interfere with another gathering, or they can be limited under a certain decibel level, or up until a certain time of night, or other reasonable restriction that does not impede their ability to protest and also not impede the other people's rights.


Untrue speech, such as libel and other lies, is not protected. Anonymous speech is occasionally unprotected in very limited ways, but in those cases it would have been protected if it was tied to your name; free speech sometimes requires courage.


Finally, simple commercial speech can be regulated. This includes the use and placement of billboards, building signage, and use of public advertisements. This only applies to purely commercial content. Businesses are still free to express ideas and that right cannot be restricted by laws.

All other speech is protected from the law. The speech itself cannot be regulated. This includes depictions of things that would be illegal. You can write about things that would be illegal to do. You and create movies about things that would be illegal to do. The Constitution protects the expression of ideas, even if the vast majority of the population dislikes it.

Note that it does not protect breaking the law as part of speech. If you break a law, such as filming the torture of animals, that crime is still punishable, but the expression of speech is not. For some this is a subtle nuance, which is why the "Crush Video" lawsuit was so controversial; you could be punished for committing the cruelty, but not for possession of the video. In the United States, the expression and communication of ideas is fiercely protected.



It doesn't matter if the idea is unpopular. It doesn't matter if the idea is offensive to most. You can burn your flag in a protest of extreme political speech. You can write books describing horrible crimes against humanity. You can draw images of child porn and write stories about it, all with impunity. It is highly offensive to most people, but you will not be imprisoned or punished or threatened by the government for expressing your ideas.

The ability to express your ideas, even if they are unpopular or disruptive, is a core concept in the country. You can disagree with your neighbor, you can disagree with the government, and you can freely express it without fear of retribution. I may not agree with what you say, but I will protect your right to say it.

The California law would have been a government restriction on the expression of violent speech. As has hopefully been pointed out, the government is prevented from regulating the expression of ideas.



This has nothing to do with tobacco, which is regulated separately.

As for the retailers you mentioned in your edited post:

Individual retailers can make their own decisions about who they will do business with, and about what content they will sell. If the retailer decides on their own to not sell content to minors (or to adults) that is entirely their prerogative. This is how current voluntary ratings standards work. The business can choose to enforce the standards or not, it is their choice. Their customers can correspondingly punish or reward them in the marketplace. For example, in some strictly religious communities a business that is open on Sundays will face fierce backlash and lose customers on all days of the week. In other cities and towns, a theater that lets minors into R rated movies will be quickly blacklisted by adults and community groups until they change their policy.

Walmart and other major retailers in my area do not carry M rated games at all. This is a local policy which they have because of public backlash. In other cities they will place them in a black cover or behind the shelf. In other cities they have no problem with them on the shelf. It is entirely a voluntary community standard.

[quote name='kryotech' timestamp='1309185968' post='4828263']As you can see here, the California law that would have restricted the sale of violent video games (defined as any that allows the player the choice to kill, maim, dismember, or sexually assault an image of a human being) to children, and would require that these games have a label on them

Are children allowed to buy adult-rated movies (e.g. Saw) in California? Can children go buy porno films in California?

If yes, then this decision makes sense as you're just being consistent.
If not, what makes games/films such that classifications should only apply to one and not the other?

We've always had classification stickers on films and games here, so it seems pretty normal to me.
Kids can't buy alcohol - they have to get their parents to buy a it for them. Kids can't buy cigarettes - they have to get their parents to buy a them for them.
Kids can't buy porno - they have to get their parents to buy a them for them. Kids can't buy 18+ movies - they have to get their parents to buy a them for them.
So going by this status quo here, it makes sense for me kids to have to get their parents to buy their 18+ games for them too.

[edit]I read up a bit on it and it seems retails can voluntarily stop selling things to minors, but SCOTUS is stopping legislators from making it law, due to these restrictions being a violation of free speech.
If that's the case, aren't these retailer's "we don't see to minors" policies also a violation of free speech?
[/quote]

Frob gave a great reply to this already but I wanted to add that there are a lot of people even in the US that don't really understand what laws there are with regards to selling things like movies and games to children. Legally there is nothing stopping a child from buying a movie in a store or going to see it in a movie. Unless for the reasons frob mentioned it is a pornographic movie. All of the restrictions that are in place have been voluntarily enforced by retailers and the rating system that was created by the movie industry. The video game industry has their own rating system that publishers and developers can submit games to to be rated. Stores can then voluntarily enforce the ratings on those games to restrict sales of games to minors.

Over the years the FTC has ran secret shopper reports showing how easy it is for minors to walk into big box stores and purchase games, movie, and music with M, R, or explicit content warnings. Games have consistantly outperformed the other media in the voluntarily enforcement of the ratings which showed that dispite the constitutionality problems of the bill also meant that the bill was simply not needed.