Supreme Court Violent Video Games Ruling

Gilwing

Gilwing

Administrator
Alliance Logistics
Alliance Owner
I used to by cigs for my mom back when I was 14 and I turned out fine........well I do play a LARP so maybe I turned out OK.
 
I posted my opinion here.

TLDR:

This is a good thing for 2 reasons.

1. It ends the "Are Video Games Art?" arguement for good and finally sets the precedent allowing games to get the same first amendment protection as other forms of media.

2. Obviously, violent games shouldn't be played by children. But, this ruling confirms that if a state is going to make that restriction a LEGAL one they need to be very specific about what they consider innapropriate. CA wasn't specific at all. In fact, they were pretty ambiguous.
 
I think it glaringly outlines the puritanical and hypocritical nature of US society - there are any number of Federal and State laws prohibiting the barest glimpse of a bare-bottom, but violence and gore of any kind are free reign. Judge Breyer said it perfectly, "What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her? What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman - bound, gagged, tortured, and killed - is also topless?"

Though, in the long view, the SCOTUS is merely thrusting the burden of parenting back onto the parents. I don't think this is as much an issue of protecting Free Speech as a message from the Court that the flow of information to minors shouldn't be a Legislated issue.
 
I don't think the free speech protection itself is as relevant as the message it sends.

The debate has raged as to whether are not video games are a form of artistic expression. This puts that baby to bed.
 
Mobius said:
I think it glaringly outlines the puritanical and hypocritical nature of US society - there are any number of Federal and State laws prohibiting the barest glimpse of a bare-bottom, but violence and gore of any kind are free reign. Judge Breyer said it perfectly, "What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting a sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her? What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman - bound, gagged, tortured, and killed - is also topless?"

Though, in the long view, the SCOTUS is merely thrusting the burden of parenting back onto the parents. I don't think this is as much an issue of protecting Free Speech as a message from the Court that the flow of information to minors shouldn't be a Legislated issue.
Click to expand...

Because there is a distinction between pornography and Art (video games).
"The most basic principle—that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas,subject matter, or content, Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, 535 U. S. 564, 573—is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words."
"California cannot meet that standard. Psychological studies purporting to show a connection between exposure to violent video games and harmful effects on children do not prove that such exposure causes minors to act aggressively. Any demonstrated effects are both small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media."
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf

I obviously agree with the judges decision.

I also think that it's up to the parents to monitor there kids not the government.
 
RiddickDale said:
I don't think the free speech protection itself is as relevant as the message it sends.

The debate has raged as to whether are not video games are a form of artistic expression. This puts that baby to bed.
Click to expand...

Actually the National Endowment for the Arts put it to bed back in May. :P

http://www.gamespy.com/articles/116/1166265p1.html
 
They named video games as eligible for grants, but they didn't name any projects that were specifically awarded a grant. So the National Endowment for the Arts stated that they COULD be art, but hasn't named an example yet (at least not that I've seen).

Call me cynical, but I don't call a debate like that closed until it is definitive. The Supreme Court ruling is about as definitive as it gets.
 
I don't see where the Supreme Court called video games art though, they just said that they are protected speech. This conversation we're having here is an example of us practicing free speech but I would not consider this discussion thread "art," just as every image captured on a canvas, video/audio tape or written down is not automatically art. The fact that NEA made video games eligible for grants is an admission that some video games meet their criteria for art, thus validating the argument that they can be. The NEA has stringent criteria for giving grants, including requirements that the art be created not-for-profit and for the public good. Few games meet these criteria but if this ruling had been made 25 years ago and the makers of Math Blaster and Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego had made those games with the intent of distributing them free to schools I'm pretty sure NEA would have at least given the grant application some serious table time.
 
And just to spin the argument in a different direction. (Cuz this is a fun debate to me) :)

The Supreme Court's ruling says that video game content is considered free speech, but what about the flipside? This opens a door that I'm sure the opposition is now looking at, namely:

Can video games that depict violence against a specific Race, Religion, Gender or Creed be considered Hate speech?

This thought intrigues me...
 
Even if they are, it wouldn't change anything. Hate speech is still legal under the First Amendment (although "fightin' words" aren't... go figure).

I don't know that this ruling was particularly ground-breaking, other than a bit of law catching up with tech (and only loosely at that). The overturn of Arizona's public funding rules was much more interesting (read: screwed up), imo.
 
Toddo said:
I don't see where the Supreme Court called video games art though, they just said that they are protected speech. This conversation we're having here is an example of us practicing free speech but I would not consider this discussion thread "art," just as every image captured on a canvas, video/audio tape or written down is not automatically art. The fact that NEA made video games eligible for grants is an admission that some video games meet their criteria for art, thus validating the argument that they can be. The NEA has stringent criteria for giving grants, including requirements that the art be created not-for-profit and for the public good. Few games meet these criteria but if this ruling had been made 25 years ago and the makers of Math Blaster and Where in the World is Carmen Sandiego had made those games with the intent of distributing them free to schools I'm pretty sure NEA would have at least given the grant application some serious table time.
Click to expand...


This is where I made the correlation of Art "Under our Constitution, 'esthetic and moral judgments about art and lit-erature . . . are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approvalof a majority.' United States v. Playboy Entertainment Group, Inc., 529 U. S. 803, 818 (2000)", http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf
 
Toddo said:
And just to spin the argument in a different direction. (Cuz this is a fun debate to me) :)

The Supreme Court's ruling says that video game content is considered free speech, but what about the flipside? This opens a door that I'm sure the opposition is now looking at, namely:

Can video games that depict violence against a specific Race, Religion, Gender or Creed be considered Hate speech?

This thought intrigues me...
Click to expand...

"Obscenity, incitement, and fighting words" are not protected and that is up to interpretation as to what is what. Guess we will have to wait and see. So which developer is going to try and push the envelope, will Rockstar dare try?
 
Look up "Custer's Revenge" as the best example of a game that has already crossed the line. I'd go into a rant on that game, but this is an all-ages board.
 
Toddo said:
Look up "Custer's Revenge" as the best example of a game that has already crossed the line. I'd go into a rant on that game, but this is an all-ages board.
Click to expand...

I know what you are talking about. I remember "Night Trap" for the Sega CD. Not as bad as Custer's though.
 
Fully on topic.

I think this is one of the best rulings I have seen in recent years, and my opinion has almost nothing to do with the content of the ruling.

It is a great ruling because it was near unanimous, judges on both sides of the political spectrum supported the ruling, AND judges on both sides of the political spectrum opposed the ruling. That shows that it wasn't politics that took precedence in this ruling. It was the law. Yes, some judges disagreed. That is to be expected. Intelligent people will disagree when faced with difficult decisions that involve difficult or narrow interpretations.

But, overall, this is a great example (hopefully someday a text book example) of the system working as intended.

-MS
 
As long as parents have an active role in the upbringing of their children, why does the law have to get involved in what your kids play?
 
Because there are many people in this country who seem to feel that taking choices away from other people is easier than telling their kids "No."
 
That is not strictly fair. It is also because some people believe, for a variety of reasons, that they are everybody's parent and that their "NO" should be universal.
 
jpariury said:
Even if they are, it wouldn't change anything. Hate speech is still legal under the First Amendment (although "fightin' words" aren't... go figure).
Click to expand...

The "fighting words" exception is hardly in effect any more. Even when it was, it merely meant that if you were trying to start a fight, the police could arrest you and you couldn't claim you were merely exercising your First Amendment rights. It's kind of been co-opted into the "clear and present danger" exception (you know, the "fire in a crowded theater" example).

This decision was pretty much obvious -- after all, what's next? Punishing libraries for letting kids read books with violence?

The stupid thing about America morals, though, is highlighted in this decision. If you torture and kill a woman graphically in a video game, there's no problem, but if you want to make love to her... well, then we'd have to stop you.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top