CoN 25th Anniversary: 1997-2022
Final Fantasy IFinal Fantasy IVFinal Fantasy VFinal Fantasy VIFinal Fantasy VIIFinal Fantasy IXFinal Fantasy TacticsChrono Trigger
 
 

Supreme Court to Review Video Game Violence Law


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
Posted in: North America

Share


Written by
BlitzSage

Comments

Magitek_slayerComment 1: 2010-05-07 20:49
Magitek_slayer
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.
sweetdudeComment 2: 2010-05-08 01:12
sweetdude
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.
BlitzSageComment 3: 2010-05-08 04:51
BlitzSage
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.
Allen HunterComment 4: 2010-05-08 05:04
Allen Hunter 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.
Glenn Magus HarveyComment 5: 2010-05-08 21:32
Glenn Magus Harvey What are the criteria for determining "violence"?
laszlowComment 6: 2010-05-08 21:41
laszlow
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.
SephirothComment 7: 2010-05-08 22:17
Sephiroth
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.
Magitek_slayerComment 8: 2010-05-10 19:09
Magitek_slayer 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.
Rangers51Comment 9: 2010-05-10 19:56
Rangers51
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.
BlitzSageComment 10: 2010-05-11 02:19
BlitzSage 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.
Rangers51Comment 11: 2010-05-11 15:04
Rangers51
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.
Magitek_slayerComment 12: 2010-05-11 18:41
Magitek_slayer
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.

sweetdudeComment 13: 2010-05-11 19:36
sweetdude 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.
Magitek_slayerComment 14: 2010-05-11 20:07
Magitek_slayer 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.
sweetdudeComment 15: 2010-05-11 21:48
sweetdude
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.
Please Log In to Add Comments

More Comments

There are more comments on this than we can show here. Please visit this thread at the forums to see more and have another opportunity to add your own.


Caves of Narshe Version 6
©1997–2024 Josh Alvies (Rangers51)

All fanfiction and fanart (including original artwork in forum avatars) is property of the original authors. Some graphics property of Square Enix.