San Francisco Marin Medical Society Blog

On Monday the Supreme Court ruled that violent video games can be sold or rented to children without parental consent. They ruled that restriction of that would constitute a violation of First Amendment rights. The 7-2 decision overturned a California law banning the sale of video games to minors that gave players the option of quote, "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being." Many doctors think such games can "program" children in the wrong direction at an early age. "We're accumulating evidence that shows that exposure to violence does affect the behavior of children.  in addition, we're concerned that the cognitive development of youth and their ability to process and make decisions appropriate doesn't occur at the ages at which they're able to obtain these video games," said San Francisco Medical Society Board President Dr. George Fouras. Video game makers and sellers celebrated today's decision. They say it puts them on the same legal footing as other forms of entertainment. Local retailers say the ruling doesn't really change much. That's because the 'Entertainment Software Rating Board' system, has made it the industry standard to prohibit the sale of M-rated, "Mature Content" video games to those under 17. "It's not a law or anything.  It's a company policy that we do to not allow mature-rated games get into the wrong hands," said video game retailer Greg Williams. Williams' company, as well as every other store we contacted, follows the ESRB suggestion in forbidding the sale of M-rated games to those under 17. Williams says the video game industry can take care of itself. "I don't think the government should really butt in.  I think the way it's going now is fine.  It's enough for the parents to know what is going to be good for their 10 year-old," Williams said. But some of the young gamers don't know what to think. Like 15 year-old David Evans. He says he knows when a game is too mature for him. And so do his parents, who don't let him play M-rated games, but . . . "A lot of parents don't make that decision, so I'm not really sure the answer to that question,": Evans said. Many parents, like Mishawaka's Garry Buntain, have an answer to that question. "I think they should be 18," said Buntain. But Buntain says parents have to be the ones responsible for that decision. "I don't think the government should have anything to do with it," Buntain said. South Bend's Marcia Harroff agrees with that second part. But she says all children mature at a different speed.  She felt comfortable letting her son play M-rated games before age 17. "I allowed him to play those games because I knew he wasn't going to take it outside of that game.  And he had fun playing them, but I knew he wasn't going to do anything beyond that," Harroff said. That's the biggest fear; that violent images and content will lead to real-life crime. After Monday's decision, Supreme Court justice Antonin Scalia acknowledged that fear, but said there was no compelling evidence to substantiate those fears. Source: http://www.fox28.com/story/14986423/supreme-court-strikes-down-video-game-age-restrictions