Track this topic | Email this topic | Print this topic

As of this Monday, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) agreed to hear a case related to video games arising in California. Instead of sending the law back to the 9th Circuit Court of California (which struck down the video game law), SCOTUS will review the decision some time after their next session begins October 4.

The law, authored by California State Senator Leland Yee, made it illegal to rent or sell violent video games to minors with a $1,000 penalty against the retailers. The video game violence bill was passed through the Californian legislature in 2005, and since then has passed through the U.S. District Court and the 9th Circuit Court. Each court has struck down the law, arguing that the legislation violated the First Amendment, citing video games as protected speech, just as movies and music have been. The lower courts have also denied certain studies relating video games to violence, stating that as of the moment no studies conclusively find that video games directly cause violence.

The name of the case will be as follows:

SCHWARZENEGGER, GOV. OF CA V. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS, ET AL.

Now, despite the comedic irony that the Terminator is sponsoring anti-video game legislation, this is a serious case. The question will be whether the Supreme Court will grant the same protections to video games as they and the lower courts have music and movies. And this is very likely to ignite a debate about video games and violence again.

Source: GamePolitics, SupremeCourt.gov

Quote (BlitzSage @ 28th April 2010 07:42)

As of this Monday, the United States Supreme Court (SCOTUS) agreed to hear a case related to video games arising in California. Instead of sending the law back to the 9th Circuit Court of California (which struck down the video game law), SCOTUS will review the decision some time after their next session begins October 4.

The law, authored by California State Senator Leland Yee, made it illegal to rent or sell violent video games to minors with a ,000 penalty against the retailers. The video game violence bill was passed through the Californian legislature in 2005, and since then has passed through the U.S. District Court and the 9th Circuit Court. Each court has struck down the law, arguing that the legislation violated the First Amendment, citing video games as protected speech, just as movies and music have been. The lower courts have also denied certain studies relating video games to violence, stating that as of the moment no studies conclusively find that video games directly cause violence.

The name of the case will be as follows:

SCHWARZENEGGER, GOV. OF CA V. ENTERTAINMENT MERCHANTS, ET AL.

Now, despite the comedic irony that the Terminator is sponsoring anti-video game legislation, this is a serious case. The question will be whether the Supreme Court will grant the same protections to video games as they and the lower courts have music and movies. And this is very likely to ignite a debate about video games and violence again.

Source: , <a href="http://www.supremecourt.gov/orders/courtorders/042610zor.pdf">SupremeCourt.gov

Perhaps it is not the violence but something posted in the other thread you did related to the rating system.

Otherwise,i seriously hope not because that would be not taking freedom of speech and pro choice.

punishing the adults because parents are too stupid and lazy to look at the label is just pathetic.


--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 28th April 2010 08:42)

Now, despite the comedic irony that the Terminator is sponsoring anti-video game legislation, this is a serious case.

I find it to be a comedic irony that the Terminator is doing anything other than acting or spending his money.

I thought that it was already illegal to sell games to minors? Are the ratings for recommendation only? That would make sense, we all know that kids are responsible enough to not buy anything that's been forbidden from them.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 7th May 2010 21:12)

I thought that it was already illegal to sell games to minors? Are the ratings for recommendation only? That would make sense, we all know that kids are responsible enough to not buy anything that's been forbidden from them.

Technically, under the Constitution, you cannot restrict the constitutional rights of minors. Well, that is if they decide that games are protected free speech. But they have upheld that sort of ruling for movies and music in the past, when they have tried to ban certain violent works.

But the question of how much rights a minor should have is a major debate point in this matter.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quite ironic that the lead actor for the 1984 blockbuster (which brought forth a laundry list of games in the '90s) would be speaking against video games. What a stupid thing to happen.

What are the criteria for determining "violence"?

--------------------

Check the "What games are you playing at the moment?" thread for updates on what I've been playing.

You can find me on the Fediverse! I use Mastodon, where I am @[email protected] ( https://sakurajima.moe/@glennmagusharvey )

Quote (Glenn Magus Harvey @ 8th May 2010 16:32)

What are the criteria for determining "violence"?

I don't know the answer to this question, but I figure that former Justice Potter Stewart's old definition of obscenity suffices here.

--------------------

this is a blog mostly about comics and videogames
END SPOILER

Quote (BlitzSage @ 7th May 2010 23:51)

Quote (sweetdude @ 7th May 2010 21:12)

I thought that it was already illegal to sell games to minors? Are the ratings for recommendation only? That would make sense, we all know that kids are responsible enough to not buy anything that's been forbidden from them.

Technically, under the Constitution, you cannot restrict the constitutional rights of minors. Well, that is if they decide that games are protected free speech. But they have upheld that sort of ruling for movies and music in the past, when they have tried to ban certain violent works.

But the question of how much rights a minor should have is a major debate point in this matter.

I'm not sure if it's a federal or a state issue, but where I live it's against the law for video game stores to buy back video games from a minor, and to sell anything above rated T games to a minor. As a teenager I was an assistant manager in one of the local game stops for awhile, and our DM would stress through conference calls that we had to card everyone before we sold a rated M game.
I was under the impression that this was a pretty heavily enforced law, and that was back in 2004.

This post has been edited by Sephiroth on 8th May 2010 22:19

--------------------

Climhazzard is the timeless evil robot who runs some of the cool stuff at CoN (mostly logging chat, since there are no quizzes at the moment), all the while watching and waiting for his moment to take over the world. -Tiddles

In the end,my mother is going to be right:

America has become a dictator state.

So much for freedom of speech,belief and other stuff.

This post has been edited by Magitek_slayer on 10th May 2010 19:10

--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Quote (Magitek_slayer @ 10th May 2010 14:09)

In the end,my mother is going to be right:

America has become a dictator state.

So much for freedom of speech,belief and other stuff.

You know, I'm all for parents doing parental duties. We shouldn't need laws that prohibit children from buying games that have gratuitous violence, language or nudity. The parents should make those decisions based on their own kids.

But guess what? They don't. They demand that their government does it for them. And the government of California did. Frankly, I'm okay with that, and you know why? Because, it's probably better off for the kids in the long run if someone does it, and unlike you, Magitek Slayer, I understand that the ability to sell something to a minor has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. It's as much an issue of freedom of speech as it is that you can't sell booze or tobacco to kids.

I honestly fail to see how this should be protected speech and why this law might be unconstitutional. Please, enlighten me.

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

Well, the constitutional rights awarded to minors is an issue within itself worth arguing. I see your argument that protecting children is important, though I do not see how enacting such a law will prevent minors from seeing violence and sexuality. But I do agree that retailers should enforce the rules of the ratings board, and card people when buying violent games. I would also understand placing ultraviolent or pornographic video games behind glass as well.

But I do think that it's important for the future of video games for them to be seen as protected free speech. I think it could open the doors to something like the Motion Picture Production Code. Under the laws of that code, you could not commit adultery without punishment, harm animals, crticize religions, nor could you depict the use of illegal drugs. While many great movies were still made, it hurt the artistic credibility of film. You cannot tell stories while being censored.

The impact of censorship is in my opinion worse than the alternative, because it promotes a McCarthyistic ideal, and it stunts the growth of children, most of which become sexually active by the age of 12, and most also grow up with violent and sexual movies and are not traumatized by it.

In short, since the court has ruled in favor of films, video games would remain a scapegoat for politicians.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 10th May 2010 21:19)

Well, the constitutional rights awarded to minors is an issue within itself worth arguing. I see your argument that protecting children is important, though I do not see how enacting such a law will prevent minors from seeing violence and sexuality. But I do agree that retailers should enforce the rules of the ratings board, and card people when buying violent games. I would also understand placing ultraviolent or pornographic video games behind glass as well.

But I do think that it's important for the future of video games for them to be seen as protected free speech. I think it could open the doors to something like the Motion Picture Production Code. Under the laws of that code, you could not commit adultery without punishment, harm animals, crticize religions, nor could you depict the use of illegal drugs. While many great movies were still made, it hurt the artistic credibility of film. You cannot tell stories while being censored.

The impact of censorship is in my opinion worse than the alternative, because it promotes a McCarthyistic ideal, and it stunts the growth of children, most of which become sexually active by the age of 12, and most also grow up with violent and sexual movies and are not traumatized by it.

In short, since the court has ruled in favor of films, video games would remain a scapegoat for politicians.

The whole thing about this is, this law is not telling the gaming industry that games are not protected free speech. It's just not. It's also not intended to stop minors from seeing violence or sexuality. This law is not dictating what a child can or can not see any more than the MPAA is saying what a child can and can not see through its ratings system (for the purposes of the point, temporarily, we'll ignore the AO and NC-17 ratings for the respective ESRB and MPAA rating sets).

When I was a kid, my parents wouldn't let me watch R-rated movies. Some parents did. Were my parents wrong, or were those other parents wrong? Probably neither. Each kid is different. Nobody's saying parents are going to jail for letting their kids see these movies or games - the law is simply saying that the kids can't legally buy or rent the games without a parent acknowledging that the kid is going to do it - the very same principle that (in theory) stops a twelve-year-old from strolling into Inglorious Basterds, popcorn in hand, without the approval of a parent.

I can honestly understand the point of view where one might worry about a slippery slope on this, but I maintain that precedent says there won't be one. Movie ratings have been around for over forty years, and we still see movies come out with pretty gratuitous sex and violence. Obscenity laws have been around even longer, but you will still not have trouble finding pretty insane porn if you really want to (granted, the internet has made the question of all of this change shape, but anything you can find online you can no doubt find offline - it probably would just take more effort).

This restriction is not censorship as some people in this thread are describing. It promotes self-censorship, perhaps, but it's not dictating standards on anyone. All it's saying is, if you want to sell your game to someone legally defined as a minor, you might need to work more closely with the ESRB to make sure your game gets a T instead of an M. If you can't tell your story adequately within those parameters, then you're not telling a story that you need to be able to sell to everyone.

I would be interested to see your source on the sexual history of kids twelve and under, by the way, Blitzsage. It would probably change my thinking on whether I would want to become a parent in the near future.

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

Quote (Rangers51 @ 10th May 2010 19:56)

[/QUOTE]
You know, I'm all for parents doing parental duties. We shouldn't need laws that prohibit children from buying games that have gratuitous violence, language or nudity. The parents should make those decisions based on their own kids.

But guess what? They don't. They demand that their government does it for them. And the government of California did. Frankly, I'm okay with that, and you know why? Because, it's probably better off for the kids in the long run if someone does it, and unlike you, Magitek Slayer, I understand that the ability to sell something to a minor has absolutely nothing to do with freedom of speech. It's as much an issue of freedom of speech as it is that you can't sell booze or tobacco to kids.

I honestly fail to see how this should be protected speech and why this law might be unconstitutional. Please, enlighten me.

It has more to do with a worry of mine that censoring scenes and graphic violence and even foul language can hinder the games good points.

That is to say,we already have laws that prohibit to sell certain games to minors.

Violence is everywhere,if you had gone back in time over 100 years ago,you could witness life hangings.

Violence is everywhere in life.

That is not to say that i agree with selling extreme violence to kids.

Listen,i was raised watching horror movies since i was a kid.

I watched killer clowns and never ending story,and neither were for kids.

My mom sat next to me and told me it was not real and it was actually good for me.

What i am getting at:YES!! grand theft auto is inappropiate for kids who are less than the age restriction.

But violence in zelda and games like pac man are harmless,to censor that would be to get ridiculous and it is unecessary.

My second point is:As soon as you illegalize it,more people are going to be looking for it.

They can also download stuff on the net.

The prohibition was pointless and in the end it was pitiful in results.

All it did was cause grief.

Religion is far more dangerous than the violence in movies and games.

In fact:Religion causes a insanity that drives people to go on to become homocidal maniacs who are racist intolerant people.

That is not to say all people are like that,but i can say as absolute fact that the westborough presbeterian religion is not good.

Going back to the subject mothers should depend less on the goverment protecting their kids and they should learn how to do it with tools they already have good enough to prevent their kids from watching content that is inappropiate for their age.

Sorry for leaving the subject slightly ranger51

Please don't scold me.



--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Censorship or prohibition is not an evil in itself, that's just ideological dogma that has no relevance in reality. If it's proven that some children are adversely effected by excessively violent games and yet their parents are still exposing them to it, that's when something has to be done. Of course there will be masses of anecdotal arguments against it, but looking at the bigger picture, i.e. not just "well I played res 1 when I was 5 and I'm ok", there is a problem and prohibition is one of many solutions to that problem.

I agree with R51 on this, I don't think this is censorship, it's closer to prohibition. Censorship would mean the controversial content is taken out of the material itself, I believe, not just prohibiting the sale of it to a certain class of people. The only suppression of free speech is perhaps some insubstantial assumption that developers wouldn't be able to put exactly what they want into the game and have to tone down their content to sell it to kids.

Also, I've never believed in the slippery slope argument in general. It's just scaremongering. A bad precedent is either not followed, reversed or developed into something more appropriate. Whenever I hear or read 'slippery slope' I think of Tintin discovering ice on the moon and sliding down into the pit. That was a Belgian journalist, and his dog, on the moon, with a rocket built by a crazy scientist, with two detectives who were accidentally on-board too, and a stowaway who hid and tried to ruin the expedition. Madness.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Where is the proof that violent games make people violent? I want to see it myself. There are many people who watch really bloody movies of horror films and they don't go out and kill people. Sorry but no,violent games don't make people violent. Violent games are not meant to be taken literally. If a person is already mentally ill,then he might act out of violence anyways. Blaming video games and movie is a easy way out,also,what about sports? sports is very very violent. People do get riled up when they defend their teams,but these things also let out people's aggression,so it is necessary. Now,that doesn't mean that kids should be playing grand theft auto.,but come on,do we want the prohibition era again like the 1920's lead by religious zealots who had no sense of fun? They want to deny us any pleasure of any sorts that makes us think,because it allows them more control over us,and as you know,religion is: You don't think for yourself
You think the way the leader says and do as he says or you will die horribly and burn in hell and be tortured and killed. If you are anything but the religion,race or sex preference that the cult is,then they kill you after they make you suffer and they give some lame excuse. Sorry,but that doesn't sound like something i want. I understand the need to control kids,but it is also parents job to control their kid and not as much the government.

This post has been edited by Magitek_slayer on 11th May 2010 20:12

--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Quote (Magitek_slayer @ 11th May 2010 21:07)

Where is the proof that violent games make people violent?

I want to see it myself.

There are many people who watch really bloody movies of  horror films and they don't go out and kill people.

Sorry but no,violent games don't make people violent.

Find your own evidence. I don't particularly care whether games make children violent, I said some excessively horrific or violent games can have an adverse effect on some children, which isn't exactly an unreasonable position I don't think. That doesn't necessary mean games make children violent, but it can be a catalyst. In Britain recently it's become illegal to watch or possess porn involving rape. Why? Because it was held that some rapists were inspired by what they were watching. No, they weren't turned into rapists by the porn, but it acted as a catalyst which resulted in rape. The same logic can be applied to games.

Quote

Now,that doesn't mean that kids should be playing grand theft auto.,but come on,do we want the prohibition era again like the 1920's lead by religious zealots who had no sense of fun? They want to deny us any pleasure of any sorts that makes us think,because it allows them more control over us,and as you know,religion is: You don't think for yourself
You think the way the leader says and do as he says or you will die horribly and burn in hell and be tortured and killed. If you are anything but the religion,race or sex preference that the cult is,then they kill you after they make you suffer and they give some lame excuse. Sorry,but that doesn't sound like something i want.

Yes, I agree, I wouldn't want to live in whatever world you've conjured up in your head. However I don't think legislating against letting kids buy games that they really shouldn't be buying is quite the same thing.

This is somewhat ridiculous. Is it not obvious that horrific images can have a bad effect on children? That's not even the issue here, the issue is where the responsibility lies: government, shops or parents.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (Rangers51 @ 11th May 2010 11:04)

I would be interested to see your source on the sexual history of kids twelve and under, by the way, Blitzsage. It would probably change my thinking on whether I would want to become a parent in the near future.

I'm not saying they're actually sexually active by then, meaning they're actually having sexual intercourse. But people's bodies begin changing at that point. The age of twelve and thirteen can be when puberty begins, and it can even occur earlier. Many males begin masturbating by that time, or at least having sexual thoughts.

I don't want to delve too far into my history here, but I do know that I was at least aware of the presence of women by 5th grade, and by 6th I knew what sex was.

Either way, Freud theorized that we are sexually curious by an early age.

Quote (sweetdude)

This is somewhat ridiculous. Is it not obvious that horrific images can have a bad effect on children? That's not even the issue here, the issue is where the responsibility lies: government, shops or parents.

That is the issue. But no matter who tries to control violence and sex, you are not going to stop children from seeing these things, and the reason is their curiosity. Come on, who here didn't sneak and watch a dirty movie behind their parents' back?

And people try to draw distinctions between video games and other media, because they are immersive? There was a study done with chimps, where they analyzed their brain waves. When a chimpanzee saw violence in a film or television, it would affect their brain waves. It's natural to have chemical reactions when watching something violent or sexual. Perhaps it is stronger in video games, but immersion exists in all media. I remember this movie called Falling Down. In it, Michael Douglas goes crazy, and I remember having a reaction to that film too. If you ban games, it will not prevent violence, because we are violent creatures. 2000 years ago, we used to watch people being killed by lions, be crucified, and hanged for entertainment. It hasn't really changed.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 11th May 2010 22:31)

and I remember having a reaction to that film too. If you ban games, it will not prevent violence, because we are violent creatures. 2000 years ago, we used to watch people being killed by lions, be crucified, and hanged for entertainment. It hasn't really changed.

This is one of the things that i was tr ying to get at.


Sex is one thing.

It doesn't mean that all sex should be allowed.

But it certainly needs to be watched out for.

And as for violence,violent sports and videogames allow people to let out their aggressiveness and all that energy.

This does not mean that we should sell games to minors that are innappropiate,but i don't believe in prohibition.


And there are many parents asking for the government to prohibit violent games all together because they themselves who are responsible are too dumb to control their own child.

Sorry but this is true

Why should i suffer because the parent is incompetent and cannot read labels? why should any of you suffer for it?

--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Quote (Magitek_slayer @ 12th May 2010 11:55)

This is one of the things that i was tr ying to get at.


Sex is one thing.

It doesn't mean that all sex should be allowed.

But it certainly needs to be watched out for.

And as for violence,violent sports and videogames allow people to let out their aggressiveness and all that energy.

This does not mean that we should sell games to minors that are innappropiate,but i don't believe in prohibition.


And there are many parents asking for the government to prohibit violent games all together because they themselves who are responsible are too dumb to control their own child.

Sorry but this is true

Why should i suffer because the parent is incompetent and cannot read labels? why should any of you suffer for it?

There is a very, very specific point that you are missing. And be assured, you are missing it. This law, if upheld, prohibits minors from buying certain games. It does not prohibit these games from being made or sold.

You obviously see yourself as someone who can handle any kind of game at whatever age you are. Great, good for you. If you are a minor, which you clearly must be to claim that you'd suffer under this law, then ask your parents to buy the game for you. Have them go to the game shop and buy it, with you there or without you, with their money or yours. Then, you come home, and you have the game you want. You weren't stopped from playing it, merely inconvenienced. You didn't suffer. If your parents refuse to buy the game, take it up with them, not the courts. The law merely forces parental responsibility, which is, go figure, the very thing that you seem to be advocating by saying that the problem is incompetent parents.

I have seen no text in this law that would indicate that adults buying games for minors would also be punishable, just that retailers could not provide the games to minors directly. Therefore, all of your steam and bluster over this issue is utterly irrelevant. Making it doubly irrelevant is that the gaming industry has won all of the challenges to the law so far. It would seem pretty likely they'll win this one too, and then the law won't ever be enforced, just as it has yet to be enforced at all due to the appeals process.

Also, and this is irrelevant to the point at hand, honestly, but you should note that sentences do not always equal paragraphs. It just might be a good thing to keep in mind for trying to present a point of view.

--------------------

"To create something great, you need the means to make a lot of really bad crap." - Kevin Kelly

Why aren't you shopping AmaCoN?

Alright then.

Since it is all cleared up i have nothing more to say on the matter.

I will not suffer since i am very much old enough.

This post has been edited by Magitek_slayer on 12th May 2010 18:07

--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

Quote (Rangers51 @ 12th May 2010 13:14)

I have seen no text in this law that would indicate that adults buying games for minors would also be punishable, just that retailers could not provide the games to minors directly. Therefore, all of your steam and bluster over this issue is utterly irrelevant. Making it doubly irrelevant is that the gaming industry has won all of the challenges to the law so far. It would seem pretty likely they'll win this one too, and then the law won't ever be enforced, just as it has yet to be enforced at all due to the appeals process.

You're right, the law hasn't been enforced. Remember, it was passed in 2005, and has been rendered unconstitutional. So, as of right now, it is not being enforced. The problem for me is, that if they say that video games are not platforms of free speech, then that will open up the floodgates. I know that I'm using the slippery slope fallacy, but there are politicians around the nation that are just waiting for that. If it is not protected speech, then they can prevent them from being sold by law. But this would mean that the court holds video games in the same regard as child pornography, which they also regarded as unprotected speech. I see no strong argument for regarding games differently than other entertainment mediums.

But I don't see any problem with protecting children. However, technically, they already should be. Retailers have the responsibility to check the ages of customers, and not give GTA to a four year old. Also, parents should have the discretion to decide if their kids can play certain games. Government bans or penalties can dissuade game designers from expressing themselves.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote

blitzsage

It was already said that this was only making it illegal to sell videogames to minors.

That i agree on.

As long as they do not push it further i am fine with that

--------------------

We are stardust.Our bodies are made from the guts of exploding stars.

Neil Degrasse Tyson.

I've tried my damnedest to stay out of this thread, but I have to flat out say it:

I think there's a point you're missing here. Where this concept of video games losing their status as platforms of free speech comes from is well beyond me because, in so far as I'm aware, that issue has nothing to do with the law proposed here, nor was it ever even called into question. Not to mention, I very much doubt that there are politicians somewhere just waiting for the opportune moment such as the prohibition of vendors selling games with mature content to minors to begin some campaign against the platform as a whole. In short: No one is MAKING the arguments you're suggesting, at least in the context of this law. All this talk of free-speech, or censorship is completely and hilariously off base. If there was a gun, you'd be jumping it.

As a matter of fact, as was mentioned by R51, all that is being proposed is that vendors have the legal authority with which to refuse the sale of these games to minors, rather than just an arbitrary ratings system, and helps parents better protect their children from said content. It should be up to parents to encourage their children not to go out and buy liquor before the appropriate age, but we still have laws in place to prevent them from doing so anyways. No one is suffering for this, nor does it harm the sale of liquor in any way. This is no different. In addition, we have a similar law already in play here in Quebec. We're asked for identification upon the purchase of any game deemed to have mature content, and so long as we are of the proper age (which, here, is 17 or older) the transaction goes off without a hitch. No fuss. It's not a big deal, please, just get over it.

This post has been edited by Dragon_Fire on 12th May 2010 21:16

--------------------

Okay, but there was a goat!

Quote (Dragon_Fire @ 12th May 2010 17:16)

No fuss. It's not a big deal, please, just get over it.

If it's not a big deal, why do you think the Supreme Court is hearing the case? You realize that they don't have to listen to it. They chose to. Either thy disagree with all of the lower courts, or they think that video games deserve constitutional protection and they want to settle the issue. It's apparently a big deal to the highest court in the nation.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (BlitzSage @ 12th May 2010 18:08)

Quote (Dragon_Fire @ 12th May 2010 17:16)

No fuss. It's not a big deal, please, just get over it.

If it's not a big deal, why do you think the Supreme Court is hearing the case? You realize that they don't have to listen to it. They chose to. Either thy disagree with all of the lower courts, or they think that video games deserve constitutional protection and they want to settle the issue. It's apparently a big deal to the highest court in the nation.

i dont know. why did Congress hold hearings about steroid use in baseball? because people love making big deals about things that are damn near irrelevant.

This post has been edited by Malevolence on 12th May 2010 22:53

--------------------

moé in the streets, senpai in the sheets

Movie theaters already have a law like this in place, don't they? If not, I can't think of a single theater nationwide that'll let a child into an R rated movie. How do they determine what's violent enough though?

I'm not exactly a proponent of this law because I think if a child is trusted with enough money to be unsupervised in a store, that their parents likely trust them enough to buy whatever they want. It also reenforces the sorts of ideals that censorship spawn from, even if it's not censorship itself. I'm just saying if it only applies to certain ratings, it doesn't look like anything surprisingly new. Many stores won't sell M rated games to minors as things stand already, law or not.

Also like R51 said, it isn't a prohibition even, it's just forcing parental supervision which I feel should be the ultimate deciding factor in what games kids do and don't play. They don't have the full rights of an adult yet because they're considered to've not had the proper chance to develop the maturity of one. This is why they cannot sign contracts, drink, drive, work etc. They need to be given the chance to learn too, otherwise they could screw themselves over very early in life.

Quote

In Britain recently it's become illegal to watch or possess porn involving rape. Why? Because it was held that some rapists were inspired by what they were watching. No, they weren't turned into rapists by the porn, but it acted as a catalyst which resulted in rape. The same logic can be applied to games.

But porn can only be bought by mature adults to begin with...

Well then I guess the freedom of speech means nothing there anymore. If fiction about criminal activity can be unrestrictedly be censored for the sole reason that it might sow the seed of corruption in otherwise rationally minded people, there's no reason to allow the expression of one crime over any other. It makes for an unsafe nation after-all. Kefka is a charismatically demented villain that enjoys genocide and treason, Ultros has murderously cannibalistic intent and that Locke person, he idealistically portrays the acts of theft and pickpocketing! We can't be encouraging any of that now can we? The next CoN headline might be "Final Fantasy VI 'Banned in Britain.'" I really do think it should be banned, under this given rationale. I mean, what makes rape the sole exception?

That also opens up all the doors to monitoring what people say in public, what they can and cannot say for the sake of the nation, ect. ect. It's just extremely, extremely oppressive sounding to me, regardless of the potentially good intentions...

I am assuming you mean evidently fictionalized portrayals though, right? 'cause if there's an actual rape victim directly involved that changes everything to the polar inverse naturally.

This post has been edited by Tonepoet on 13th May 2010 01:39

--------------------

Role reversal at its finest.

Quote (Malevolence @ 12th May 2010 18:52)

i dont know. why did Congress hold hearings about steroid use in baseball?

Umm, because steroids are dangerous substance that has been prevalent, not just in professional sports, but in lower levels? Including students that can do major harm to themselves? Also, that is Congress. You can expect stuff like that from them. The Supreme Court can choose which cases to hear. They could have sided with the lower court's decision and let it be, and they do not have to go through elections.

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!

Quote (laszlow @ 8th May 2010 13:41)

I don't know the answer to this question, but I figure that former Justice Potter Stewart's old definition of obscenity suffices here.

It does not. The current standard for deciding whether an obscenity statute conflicts with the Free Speech provision of the First Amendment is the case Miller v. California.

Quote (Rangers51 @ 10th May 2010 11:56)

It's as much an issue of freedom of speech as it is that you can't sell booze or tobacco to kids.

Quote (Dragon_Fire @ 12th May 2010 13:16)

Where this concept of video games losing their status as platforms of free speech comes from is well beyond me because, in so far as I'm aware, that issue has nothing to do with the law proposed here, nor was it ever even called into question...It should be up to parents to encourage their children not to go out and buy liquor before the appropriate age, but we still have laws in place to prevent them from doing so anyways. No one is suffering for this, nor does it harm the sale of liquor in any way. This is no different.

That's also incorrect. If you check the standards set forth in Miller v. California, you'll see that one of the standards is literary and artistic value. Games have an expressive element to them that bring them under the gamut of the First Amendment of the US Constitution (I don't know about Canada, DF), as does literature, movies, music, and even nude dancing (seriously, Supreme Court ruled on it). That artistically expressive element is simply lacking in the sale of tobacco or alcohol. A better corollary would be attempting to prohibit the screening of a movie to minors because it showed the use of tobacco or alcohol consumption.

Quote (BlitzSage @ 10th May 2010 18:19)

But I do think that it's important for the future of video games for them to be seen as protected free speech. I think it could open the doors to something like the Motion Picture Production Code. Under the laws of that code, you could not commit adultery without punishment, harm animals, crticize religions, nor could you depict the use of illegal drugs. While many great movies were still made, it hurt the artistic credibility of film. You cannot tell stories while being censored.

That's not a law you cited to, it's a self enforced set of principles adopted by the film industry, as was the MPAA rating standard that subsequently replaced it, as is the ESRB. The exclusive purpose of these ratings systems is to AVOID having something passed by the legislature, because these industries would rather be self-regulating than deal with the hassle of government regulation, as you can see from the current case.

Quote (Rangers51 @ 11th May 2010 07:04)

Nobody's saying parents are going to jail for letting their kids see these movies or games - the law is simply saying that the kids can't legally buy or rent the games without a parent acknowledging that the kid is going to do it - the very same principle that (in theory) stops a twelve-year-old from strolling into Inglorious Basterds, popcorn in hand, without the approval of a parent.

EXCEPT that what keeps a kid from going to see Inglorious Basterds is a self-regulating industry standard, and not a law. The First Amendment only prevents GOVERNMENT or state actors from prohibiting speech, it doesn't speak to private regulation, which is why you have never previously seen a lawsuit over these things until the state passed legislation. I don't think that there is a comparable state legislation with respect to movies, at least not here in California - this state does encompass Hollywood, after all, and I think the Governator would probably feel slightly different about such a movie law given that he's an actor, which is why this is ironic when you get right down to it. And while they aren't sending anyone to jail, they are fining them, which could be seen as a restraint on expression.

BTW, I'm an attorney licensed with the State Bar of California, as some of you already know, but I just wanted to throw that out there for full disclosure. My overall impression on this is that it is a relatively distinct issue of law and predictions will be imbalanced. There is some case law going the other way, for instance, with respect to television content regulated to protect children, and radio as well. Of course, the difference there is that these things air over public airwaves accessible by anyone, which is why premium cable channels and satellite radio are uncensored. It also does not serve as a direct analogy, but such cases will likely be cited by the side seeking to enforce this law.

The legal issues are more nuanced and I don't know enough about this particular case and its facts to comment more than I have. From a political standpoint, however, I'm not sure how I feel about it. I abhor censorship, but understand the desire to protect children from content. But shouldn't that responsibility lie with the parents and not with the state or private industry? Eh, I guess I just don't have the energy to go into any more detail than that, I have to deal with the law too often, especially in the media context. It will be interesting to see how this turns out.

Quote (Tonepoet @ 13th May 2010 01:11)

Well then I guess the freedom of speech means nothing there anymore. If fiction about criminal activity can be unrestrictedly be censored for the sole reason that it might sow the seed of corruption in otherwise rationally minded people, there's no reason to allow the expression of one crime over any other. It makes for an unsafe nation after-all.

...

That also opens up all the doors to monitoring what people say in public, what they can and cannot say for the sake of the nation, ect. ect. It's just extremely, extremely oppressive sounding to me, regardless of the potentially good intentions...

Freedom of speech usually means freedom of speech over here. Watching porn in which women are brutally beaten and raped has nothing to do with it. Under freedom of expression in the Human Rights Act, maybe, but as far as I know the law hasn't been challenged on those grounds, and even if it was, the HRA requires the court to take public interest into consideration when deciding on artistic expression. No, the perceived problem is not about sowing the seed of corruption in rational people, it's about pushing irrational and twisted people over the edge.

It doesn't open any doors to monitoring what people say in public. I'm sorry but I don't see any connexion between stopping people watching rape porn and living in a police state. To me that sounds like the unreasonableness that precedes the 'slippery slope' of political discussion.

I don't think prohibiting material from kids or adults results in a loss of any kind, other than perhaps some ideological pride. People have said many times already, if kids really want to play the games they will find a way anyway, so no harm done. It's just better public policy to be tougher on the sales of these games in order to discourage it.

--------------------

Scepticism, that dry rot of the intellect, had not left one entire idea in his mind.

Me on the Starcraft.

Quote (sweetdude @ 13th May 2010 08:51)

I don't think prohibiting material from kids or adults results in a loss of any kind, other than perhaps some ideological pride. People have said many times already, if kids really want to play the games they will find a way anyway, so no harm done.

Perhaps, but who decides what material should be blocked? Could it perhaps be a better responsibility to give to parents? I watched dirty films, and as you said, children will find a way.

Quote

It's just better public policy to be tougher on the sales of these games in order to discourage it.

Exactly, and that can harm the quality of titles. As it was pointed out earlier, the Production Code was not a law. However, it was done in the responce to a law. The studios feared backlash from controversy from the government. Later, there was a major rebellion against that code, and it created one of the best eras of movies. You are right, this has hurt the quality of video games and will continue to.

And you must understand. We're not just talking about quality of entertainment. Art can be a major force in challenging authority, immorality, the establishment. You cannot do that with censored material.

When we talk about video games being art, they can't be if this goes against video games and for the law.

This post has been edited by BlitzSage on 13th May 2010 17:25

--------------------

Praise Be To Helix!