California's Video Game Law

[Chronos]

California's video game law, restricting the sale of video games to minors, was struck down in federal court today.

They also ruled that there has yet to be proven a casual link between violent video games and psychological damage.


Note: This only strikes down the state law. Most stores still won't sell M-rated games to minors.

[Lammalord]

HAHA i had to do an essay on this last year, got a A :p

[KenquinnTheInsaneOne]

California's video game law, restricting the sale of video games to minors, was struck down in federal court today.

They also ruled that there has yet to be proven a casual link between violent video games and psychological damage.


Note: This only strikes down the state law. Most stores still won't sell M-rated games to minors.

Technically the stores have to sell it to you if you can prove your 17+. As that is the age requirement for M rated game you don't need to be a adult to play them.

If stores are refusing to M rated games to minors that can prove they are 17+. The store is in the wrong.

[Chronos]

Umm, first, by minors I meant under 17. Second, technically speaking, stores don't have to sell diddly-squat anyone.

[KenquinnTheInsaneOne]

Umm, first, by minors I meant under 17. Second, technically speaking, stores don't have to sell diddly-squat anyone.

Yes technically Stores have the right to refuse service on there on prerogative I forgot that.

And I thought you meant a legal minor.

Sorry for the cunfusion

[Seither]

Umm, first, by minors I meant under 17. Second, technically speaking, stores don't have to sell diddly-squat anyone.

Yes technically Stores have the right to refuse service on there on prerogative I forgot that.

And I thought you meant a legal minor.

Sorry for the cunfusion

well, "technically" you're still considered a legal "minor" until you hit 21, as all turning 18 does is let you vote, buy cigerettes, and be taxed by the government. They really just want to get their money from you sooner, lol. But all the rights and privilages of being an adult really aren't given to you until you're 21, and until then, everyone, government officials, views and treats you as a minor, just a minor "responsible for their actions", which you were at 16 anyways.

America: Clear Cut Laws, Always

[Chronos]

First, we were talking about video game legislation. In that context, "minor" has meant about the same thing as it did in regards to obscene materials. This is a parallel that most anti-video game peoples have brought up on more than one occasion, I do assure you. I apologize if I sounded ambiguous.

Second, originally you could not vote till you were 21. It was only lowered because people thought that if one could be conscripted, one should be able to vote. It was that darn Vietnamese war, and I am inclined to agree. They have the minimum age for the same reason literacy tests sounded good on paper: People, in general, did not want "stupid" people to vote (at least not to vote "incorrectly"). Many people, however, would rather allow allegedly stupid people to vote than begin the infringing process again.

Third, one may legally get taxed from birth. The thing is no income means no income tax. You have to make certain amount of money before you have to file your federal taxes. Sales tax still applies to everyone.

Fourth, you have doctors to thank for setting the legal drinking age to 21. They say it hurts the development of one's brain until about 21ish.  They did not have enough data to do the same for tobacco and obscene materials, so they were just set that at 18. The government, at the behest of the people, has taken it upon itself to protect the nation's youth.

Fifth, below a certain age, kids obviously should not be that responsible for their actions. They simply do not know better, and their actions are often not a good indication of what they will grow up to be. Below that age, the parents (or legal guardians) are legally responsible for what their children do. Obviously, after a certain age, kids can be responsible for their actions, and parents cannot be expected to control them anymore. The question is, "At what age does this generally happen?" Well, have you ever tried to control a 16-year-old? By that age, their personality has generally taken hold, and they can be near impossible to control. They're still tried as youth rather than adults, so there is some leniency there. I do not think they can be held past age 18 if they are tried as youth.

America: Clear Cut Laws, Not-a-Chance.
America: Reasonable Laws, We-Try.

[Seither]

lol, Chronos, I was being sarcastic about america's laws being clear cut, because not a single one is. In fact, every single law has another law that either counters, overrides, challenges, redefines, or even alters the originals meaning. Hence why a court case takes so freaking long, figuring out exactly what IS going on is 90% of the work, lol.

As for reasonable laws, show me how taxing someone under 18 when they get a job but giving their money back is "reasonable". Law prevents the government from holding on to a child's money via taxes, so long as they are a child (also read as dependant).

America's government makes complicated laws to screw with us, it's obvious. George Washington is enjoying watching us scratch our heads over laws.

[Chronos]

lol, Chronos, I was being sarcastic about america's laws being clear cut,

I know.

Law prevents the government from holding on to a child's money via taxes, so long as they are a child (also read as dependant).

Where does it say this? It seems pretty clear cut to me.


And I never said our laws were reasonable, only that we try. Complicated legislation often comes about as a result of attempting to be reasonable. There are an infinite number of possible situations. A simple law either lumps most of these together, or leaves things up to reinterpretation and opinion. Making the law more complicated can allow the law to consider more intricacies of the situation while still avoiding the chance of reinterpretation.

[Seither]

see, this is where you're mistaken, there's a difference between paying taxes, and paying taxes. In the former, when you file your return, you get EVERYTHING you paid to the feds and state back, where as the lateral you only get a small amount. So technically you never pay them as a minor, you just have to file your return claim separately to get your money back, lol.

[Chronos]

It seems to me that a child's deduction is not infinite, merely up to $5.350-ish (for earned income).

If the kid is making more than, say, ~$6.000 (~$10.000 if he claims himself as a dependent), then he does not get all of the money back. It works the same for adults. It is just that adults tend to make more than $10k a year.

[Seither]

I worked 40 hours a week making $8/hr when I was 17. I got almost every sent back (you only get the state and federal tax on your check back, not the social security deductions), as my parents claimed me as a dependent. This may be only in Ohio though, idk about other states. But I got it all back, as I was a dependent student.

[Chronos]

Hmm, well I do not understand these tax things, and I try not to pretend that I do.

I do think it kind of makes some sense, in its own way. Tax returns are often a confusing mess. However, the rest of the year, taxes are relatively consistent. Most of the complications seem to naturally coalesce down near tax season.

But, you know, whatever.

[Seither]

Hmm, well I do not understand these tax things, and I try not to pretend that I do.

I do think it kind of makes some sense, in its own way. Tax returns are often a confusing mess. However, the rest of the year, taxes are relatively consistent. Most of the complications seem to naturally coalesce down near tax season.

But, you know, whatever.

ya, its like 11/12 months, it makes sense, just that 1 month its all like, wait what? lol.

Lesson being, if you want to work in government, talk in paradoxical sentences and you'll have it made.