US Supreme Court: Video Games Qualify For First Amendment
"The United States Supreme Court threw out a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors. 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.'"
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.
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.
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 got who deserves to die for sniping him one too many times? That stings.
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.
Good ruling.
Did you bother reading the opinion? Or did you just throw this tired complaint out there?
That's just Winehole's form of trolling.
It wasn't a complaint, and I just skimmed the article. Sue me.
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?
(For the record, I'm cool with either)
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.
Get it straight: I do not have forms of trolling, I am pure troll.That's just Winehole's form of trolling.
I concur.
pages 8-11 of the majority opinion and 75% of Alito's concurrence.
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)
Aww man, I was hoping to get Uncle Sam to help me police my kids.
Last edited by Agloco; 06-28-2011 at 03:26 PM.
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdfJUSTICE 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.
The compelling state interest fails under strict scrutiny and is overinclusive.
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.
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.
You're over-reading an offhand comment instead of responding to my more topical replies. Telling.
Last edited by Winehole23; 06-28-2011 at 04:29 PM.
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 cons utonal protection video games now receive. Long story short: Alito's approach wouldn't be accepted by the court.
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
