US Supreme Court: Video Games Qualify For First Amendment

[ElNono]

US Supreme Court: Video Games Qualify For First Amendment
"The United States Supreme Court threw out a California law (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf) prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors (http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2009/civ/1746-1746.5.html). Notable in the opinion is a historical review of the condemnation of "unworthy" material that would tend to corrupt children, starting with penny-novels and up through comic books and music lyrics. The opinion is also notable for the odd lineup of Justices that defies normal ideological lines, with one conservative and one liberal jurist dissenting on entirely different grounds. In the process, they continue the broad rule that the First Amendment does not vary with the technological means used: 'Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And the basic principles of freedom of speech... do not vary with a new and different communication medium.'"

[Winehole23]

The cultural mainstream is hard libertarian.

In this case the Supreme Court apparently declines to defer to fogeyish pearl-clutching over community standards and mores, when it comes to the freedom of big business to sell profanity, violence and gratuitous vulgarity to an eager and discerning American public.

[baseline bum]

It's kind of funny that the federal government stopped going after "violent video games" once they realized they could make their own first person shooter to drive up recruitment numbers for the army.

[spurs_fan_in_exile]

For my money the most objectionable content that I find in games are in the insults and threats that other gamers throw around on line. Gamers can differeniate between the game and the real world. That's why they play them. But when you have an actual human being on the other end of a broadband connection telling you that you're a piece of shit faggot who deserves to die for sniping him one too many times? That stings.

[EVAY]

There is a huge amount of social sciences literature that shows that continual exposure to violent images reduces a human's ability to be moved by it. Having said that, it does come back to personal and parental responsibility to limit said exposure.

But, at the same time, cigarette advertising has certainly been modified by governmental intervention...emotional damage is harder to quantify than nicotine damage, I guess.

Tough going.

[LnGrrrR]

Good ruling.

[Winehole23]

But when you have an actual human being on the other end of a broadband connection telling you that you're a piece of shit faggot who deserves to die for sniping him one too many times? That stings.:rollin

[vy65]

The cultural mainstream is hard libertarian.

In this case the Supreme Court apparently declines to defer to fogeyish pearl-clutching over community standards and mores, when it comes to the freedom of big business to sell profanity, violence and gratuitous vulgarity to an eager and discerning American public.

Did you bother reading the opinion? Or did you just throw this tired complaint out there?

[LnGrrrR]

That's just Winehole's form of trolling. :lol

[Winehole23]

Did you bother reading the opinion? Or did you just throw this tired complaint out there?It wasn't a complaint, and I just skimmed the article. Sue me.

[Winehole23]

Was there something in the decision you'd like to bring to our attention, or did you just want to have a slap fight with me?

[Winehole23]

(For the record, I'm cool with either)

[ElNono]

I think parents need to be parents. You don't want your kid exposed to some material out there? Then do your job as a parent.

[Winehole23]

That's just Winehole's form of trolling. :lolGet it straight: I do not have forms of trolling, I am pure troll.

[Winehole23]

I think parents need to be parents. You don't want your kid exposed to some material out there? Then do your job as a parent.Amen.

[JoeChalupa]

I think parents need to be parents. You don't want your kid exposed to some material out there? Then do your job as a parent.

I concur.

[vy65]

Was there something in the decision you'd like to bring to our attention, or did you just want to have a slap fight with me?

pages 8-11 of the majority opinion and 75% of Alito's concurrence.

[Winehole23]

For those of us who may not have read it yet, what does it say and do you have an opinion about what it says?

(in the meantime, I'll read it myself)

[Agloco]

US Supreme Court: Video Games Qualify For First Amendment
"The United States Supreme Court threw out a California law (http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf) prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors (http://law.justia.com/codes/california/2009/civ/1746-1746.5.html). Notable in the opinion is a historical review of the condemnation of "unworthy" material that would tend to corrupt children, starting with penny-novels and up through comic books and music lyrics. The opinion is also notable for the odd lineup of Justices that defies normal ideological lines, with one conservative and one liberal jurist dissenting on entirely different grounds. In the process, they continue the broad rule that the First Amendment does not vary with the technological means used: 'Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And the basic principles of freedom of speech... do not vary with a new and different communication medium.'"

Aww man, I was hoping to get Uncle Sam to help me police my kids.



For my money the most objectionable content that I find in games are in the insults and threats that other gamers throw around on line. Gamers can differeniate between the game and the real world. That's why they play them. But when you have an actual human being on the other end of a broadband connection telling you that you're a piece of shit faggot who deserves to die for sniping him one too many times? That stings.

:lol

[Winehole23]

JUSTICE ALITO’s argument highlights the precise danger posed by the California Act: that the ideas expressed by speech—whether it be violence, or gore, or racism—and not its objective effects, may be the real reason for governmental proscription.http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf

[Winehole23]

The compelling state interest fails under strict scrutiny and is overinclusive.

[vy65]

For those of us who may not have read it yet, what does it say and do you have an opinion about what it says?

(in the meantime, I'll read it myself)

The idea that this case is mere pandering by the court to "big business" to pander violence and smut is ignorant of how the First Amendment has been historically deployed. Also, the idea that video games are mere "violence and gratuitous vulgarity" is uninformed and out of touch.

[ElNono]

pages 8-11 of the majority opinion and 75% of Alito's concurrence.

I actually thought that Alito opened the door to perhaps narrow the law a bit in order to get it through. It's debatable wether such narrowing would make the law completely ineffective, but I thought his particular disagreement with the majority was noteworthy.

[Winehole23]

The idea that this case is mere pandering by the court to "big business" to pander violence and smut is ignorant of how the First Amendment has been historically deployed. Also, the idea that video games are mere "violence and gratuitous vulgarity" is uninformed and out of touch.You're over-reading an offhand comment instead of responding to my more topical replies. Telling.

[vy65]

I actually thought that Alito opened the door to perhaps narrow the law a bit in order to get it through. It's debatable wether such narrowing would make the law completely ineffective, but I thought his particular disagreement with the majority was noteworthy.

The part you mentions seems to be his attempt to analogize video games to a incitement -- which is unprotected. It's an interesting argument, and might have some validity, but that's a separate issue, is not really supported by scientific data, and still has to grapple with grapple with the constitutonal protection video games now receive. Long story short: Alito's approach wouldn't be accepted by the court.

[vy65]

You're over-reading an offhand comment. Enjoy!

Your concession is duly noted.

[Winehole23]

Your preference for slap fighting over topical discussion is also duly noted.

[LnGrrrR]

I think it's rather obvious that video games should be protected, as many have artistic merit.

I think the larger question is, what decides whether or not a piece of art DOES have artistic merit? (Thinking of the old "comic code" here and how they banned pulp comics in the 40s/50s.)

[vy65]

I think it's rather obvious that video games should be protected, as many have artistic merit.

I think the larger question is, what decides whether or not a piece of art DOES have artistic merit? (Thinking of the old "comic code" here and how they banned pulp comics in the 40s/50s.)

The Court has been pretty good about staying as far away from that question as possible. They try and do so by saying what is not entitled to protection as opposed to delineating what should be protected. It's like they have an easier time defining what is "not art" as opposed to what "is art."

But that's a slippery approach - and there are going to be some determinations of what counts as art when determining what isn't covered by the First Amendment. Nature of the beast I suppose.

But that's also not to say that conceptions of what is protected vs. not-protected can't change. If I remember right, the unprotected "fighting words" in the Chaplinksy case were something like "you're a goddamned communist." That shit's said like 20x a day on Fox News now ...

[mingus]

I think parents need to be parents. You don't want your kid exposed to some material out there? Then do your job as a parent.

exactly. block websites, don't buy them an x-box, etc. if you do buy them an x-box, monitor what they're playing. it's easy to do all that.

[Agloco]

exactly. block websites, don't buy them an x-box, etc. if you do buy them an x-box, monitor what they're playing. it's easy to do all that.

What's not easy is monitoring what's going on when they're not with you (ie at school). And that's the part that really worries parents.

[ElNono]

What's not easy is monitoring what's going on when they're not with you (ie at school). And that's the part that really worries parents.

Part of parenting is knowing who and what's around them. It isn't easy, but at the same time generations of people turned out ok without requiring a ban of violent art forms, etc.

[Winehole23]

nm

[Winehole23]

A bit over half a decade ago when California legislators felt entitled to protect children across their state by restricting sales of violent video games struck me as deeply amusing from the onset. Not because it would end up costing the state roughly $2 Million (http://www.ecollegetimes.com/student-life/failed-video-game-law-cost-california-2-million-1.2703374#.T0OmZYcgew0) in legal fees after a failed appeal all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court nor out of the sheer disregard for the First Amendment. But because the sheer bureaucratic arrogance on the parts of Arnold Schwarzenegger and Jerry Brown, the Governor of California and State Attorney during this time in believing it was their responsibility to discern what content children should or shouldn’t have exposure.https://www.examiner.com/video-game-industry-in-national/california-s-struck-down-video-game-law-saddles-state-with-2-million-bill

[RandomGuy]

the idea that video games are mere "violence and gratuitous vulgarity" is uninformed and out of touch.

yuppers.

Anyone interested in gaming should watch this:

http://www.penny-arcade.com/patv/show/extra-credits

Based on your statement, I would guess you would probably like it.

They takle all sort of thorny issues in a sensible, mature manner.

The one on free speech is here:

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/free-speech


That said, there are some games where the violence is just gratuitous. When my boys get old enough, I am going to have a serious discussion with them about violence and so forth, and am laying the groundwork already.

At some point all that violence is, I think, unhealthy.

A little is all good fun once in a while, but a steady diet of it is like too much of anything, i.e. probably not good for you.

[RandomGuy]

Video games as art:

http://penny-arcade.com/patv/episode/art-is-not-the-opposite-of-fun

[Winehole23]

FWIW, vy65 misconstrued my facetious initial post and hence my tone. I think the law was silly and a waste of money.

[LnGrrrR]

Speaking of video games that are slightly more than being about violence, I'm looking forward to Mass Effect 3.

And the whole "video games as art" has taken huge steps lately with games like Braid.

[Jacob1983]

So the word fag or the slang phrase "that's gay" can be in a video game? If that's true, Grant Hill will be heart broken.

[Winehole23]

lol bragging about your gaydar

[redzero]

Why do you want fun banned, Winehole?

[Winehole23]

Why do you want fun banned, Winehole?that's a misconception

[vy65]

FWIW, vy65 misconstrued my facetious initial post and hence my tone. I think the law was silly and a waste of money.

Yah I overreacted and didn't get a sense as to your facetiousness. My bad, dog.

[Winehole23]

eh, my bad for attempting to "have fun" with it. the cues can be pretty hard to pick up online.