Supreme Court rule video games as protected speech

[Riku3220]

http://www.g4tv.com/thefeed/blog/post/713985/supreme-court-video-game-ruling-court-rules-games-are-protected-speech/

 

In a major win for the video game industry and Free Speech, the United States Supreme Court has struck down California's game law. It was a 7-2 decision, ruling that California's law forbidding the sale or rental of violent games to minors do not comport with the First Amendment. In short: The Game industry won.

 

The 92-page decision boils down to the following passage:

 

"This country has no tradition of specially restricting childrens access to depictions of violence. And Californias claim that 'interactive' video games present special problems, in that the player participates in the violent action on screen and determines its out-come, is unpersuasive."

 

 

 

"We are thrilled by today's news," said Jennifer Mercurio, VP & General Counsel of the Entertainment Consumers Association in a a statement. "We had hoped that we would see this decision, and it's been a long time coming. That being said, there will probably be one or two legislators who attempt to test these new parameters, and the ECA will continue to fight for the rights of entertainment consumers."

 

The decision, written by Justice Antonin Scalia, regarded by many as the most conservative member of The Court, lays out an argument that acknowledges that research into the "harm" done by video games to minors shows only correlation, not causation, and so is not convincing. It also points out the level of violence contained in classic works of literature like The Odyssey, The Inferno, and even Grimm's Fairy Tales, as well categorizing California's attempt to regulate video games as "the latest episode in a long history of failed attempts to censor violent entertainment for minors."

 

Also discussed: The history of attempts to classify "new" forms of speech as special classes of protection. The Court has ruled that games are not "qualitatively different from other portrayals of violence" even though they are interactive.

 

Dissenting opinions were offered by Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer, generally regarded as members of the court's right and left wings, respectively.

 

Justice Clarence Thomas' dissent lays out an argument that U.S. history clearly shows that the founders of our nation believed in the absolute authority of parents over their minor children. Summed up by:

 

"I am sure that the founding generation would not have understood 'the freedom of speech' to include a right to speak to children without going through their parents. As a consequence, I do not believe that laws limiting such speechfor example, by requiring parental consent to speak to a minorabridg[e] the freedom of speech.

 

Justice Breyer's dissent points out his belief that the California law at issue would not have created a new category of speech, and that it is already illegal to sell material depicting nudity to children. Further, according to Breyer, the law "prevents no one from buying a video game... all it does is prevent a child or adolescent from buying, without parental assistance, a gruesomely violent video game of a kind that the industry itself tells us it wants to keep out of the hands of those under the age of 17."

With this I hope more people will realize that violent video games aren't as bad as they think. And it's good to know that the SC is on our side for decisions like these.

[Alg]

If only the dancing smiley wasn't broken...

[Sy_Accursed]

It amazes me that people still buy into the "violent games/music/films make people more violent" thing; I mean if that IS true surely all others should apply too? romance should make us more romantic, action should makes us more active etc. etc.

[Flodder450]

It's the responsibility of the parent,not the state

[champion]

Why do they just say "violent" video games? Do they just mean M-rated games? Because there's a lot of violent games that aren't rated M, and there's a lot of M-rated games that aren't violent.

 

Anyways, yay I guess. I don't really care either way, I'm fine with fewer little kids playing games aimed at older audiences.

[H2PM]

It's the responsibility of the parent,not the state

Exactly.

[Riku3220]

Why do they just say "violent" video games? Do they just mean M-rated games? Because there's a lot of violent games that aren't rated M, and there's a lot of M-rated games that aren't violent.

 

Anyways, yay I guess. I don't really care either way, I'm fine with fewer little kids playing games aimed at older audiences.

I'm guessing it means any game that has "Violence" or "Intense Violence" as one of the reasons for the rating. Maybe "Mild Violence" counts as well.

 

But hey, Kingdom Hearts is rated E and only has "Violence" listed.

[Ginger_Warrior]

It amazes me that people still buy into the "violent games/music/films make people more violent" thing; I mean if that IS true surely all others should apply too? romance should make us more romantic, action should makes us more active etc. etc.

For what it's worth, I still buy into it. I'm sorry if that amazes you, but I don't actually consider myself an ignorant person. I've played as many FPS games as anyone else.

 

I think one of the key problems with video games in particular is that violence is often accompanied by a lack of moral context. I wouldn't want my kids to grow up thinking that violence is completely unacceptable, because sometimes war is an inevitability. However, I'd want them to realise that we are at war for a reason and that war in itself isn't necessarily an excuse to do whatever actions a soldier or a commander in real life might want to do to their enemy. Same goes in everyday life--violence is acceptable, but only in very certain conditions.

 

The point is that parents should take more responsibility when it comes to deciding on how much is too much for their own child, since every child is different, and not rely on the state to intervene or lazily depend on regulatory bodies to provide all the information--which is easily available in the public domain--to make that judgement for them.

 

I think the campaigns to have GTA4 etc. banned have been more to do with mothers wanting to lecture other people about how their methods are so much better than anyone else's. If it wasn't, they'd just ban the game from their own house and have done with it, but no, everyone must know how sanctimoniously they've beaten their child over the head with their own morality.

 

For me it's in the same league as bragging in the school playground about how wonderfully talented their child is over everyone else's. Letting everyone know they feel GTA4 should be banned is just their way of self-validating the fact that they've taken a personal decision to do so, regardless of whether the facts stack up.

[Giordano]

It's pointless to add any more laws besides age limits. If someone doesn't meet the age limit, he'll get someone who is to buy it for him. Like beer, smokes, drugs, etc.

 

The solution? Watch your kids.

[Buzzcut3]

It amazes me that people still buy into the "violent games/music/films make people more violent" thing; I mean if that IS true surely all others should apply too? romance should make us more romantic, action should makes us more active etc. etc.

For what it's worth, I still buy into it. I'm sorry if that amazes you, but I don't actually consider myself an ignorant person. I've played as many FPS games as anyone else.

 

I think one of the key problems with video games in particular is that violence is often accompanied by a lack of moral context. I wouldn't want my kids to grow up thinking that violence is completely unacceptable, because sometimes war is an inevitability. However, I'd want them to realise that we are at war for a reason and that war in itself isn't necessarily an excuse to do whatever actions a soldier or a commander in real life might want to do to their enemy. Same goes in everyday life--violence is acceptable, but only in very certain conditions.

 

The point is that parents should take more responsibility when it comes to deciding on how much is too much for their own child, since every child is different, and not rely on the state to intervene or lazily depend on regulatory bodies to provide all the information--which is easily available in the public domain--to make that judgement for them.

 

I think the campaigns to have GTA4 etc. banned have been more to do with mothers wanting to lecture other people about how their methods are so much better than anyone else's. If it wasn't, they'd just ban the game from their own house and have done with it, but no, everyone must know how sanctimoniously they've beaten their child over the head with their own morality.

 

For me it's in the same league as bragging in the school playground about how wonderfully talented their child is over everyone else's. Letting everyone know they feel GTA4 should be banned is just their way of self-validating the fact that they've taken a personal decision to do so, regardless of whether the facts stack up.

 

I did a Psychology paper on this, and there is a correlation. Playing violent video games does not equal serial killer. On a milder level, playing violent video games does correlate to anti-social tendencies and people who play violent video games are more likely to fight, act harshly when angry, etc. It does not instantly cause little minions of doom. If someone is a violent individual, they will likely be acting out on their violent tendencies one way or another if violent video games are banned or not.

 

Of course, correlation does not equal causation. I play violent video games because the multi-player is usually competitive and fun for me (CoD, Halo, Gears), and violent is very subjective, as a game like Zelda could be considered violent even though it probably helps ones puzzle solving ability.

 

OT: Great and accurate ruling. It's the parents responsibility to protect their kids from video games if they don't want them playing it.

[Ginger_Warrior]

Agreed.

 

OT: BTW Blitzel sucks BTW. Lrn2Joltik.

[Albel]

It's the responsibility of the parent,not the state

Indeed.

 

My mother and I got into a discussion about it and she said the same thing, and she hates the fact I play video games as much as I do. Thought she was going to use this to bust my balls over it, but she actually agreed with the verdict.

[Sy_Accursed]

Trouble with studies: You can make them show whatever you like by conditions applied etc. It's like rule 1 of statistics, you can make 1 set of data "prove" two exact opposite arguments.

There's tons of very in-depth studies that show no link what-so-ever between violent games and being violent. In fact most studies show people who play such games are less violent as it gives them an outlet for irrational anger that doesn't involve hurting anybody/thing irl. Most decent studies that did show a correlation all relied on test subjects who were of a violent nature anyway: eg looking at people convicted of assault and noting them played GTA and therefore implying to the public that it was a causation.

 

Thanks to an older brother I've played GTA games (all rated 18+) and watched many violent 18+ movies from the ages of like ~11 as has my other brother. He has a tendency to lash out and be a bit violent, I'm one of the least angry and violent people you could meet (as is my oldest brother who gave us the games etc). Nothing to do with the films or games, all three of us have had these personalities since we were born.

 

Trying to blame violent games for violent behaviour is just sheer scapegoating; I can see it holding true in very small children (eg up to the age of around 4) as they do mimic what they see and hear, but older than that games aren't gonna twist their personality and tendancies. I think it's also dumb to read too much in to any correlations because in the younger generations (sort of mid 20s and down) you'd be hard pushed to find anybody who HASN'T played/watched violent video games or movies extensively. I mean nearly everything has violent content; runescape certainly does and many kids cartoons feature robbers and knocking people out and then there's all the games that aren't even 18+ that centre around shooting and fighting.

[Ginger_Warrior]

runescape certainly does

I think I speak for the whole of the VG&C board when I say RuneScape is about ten thousand miles away from what we're actually talking about here. We're comparing GoW and Dead Space--'Strategic Dismemberment' springs to mind--to... what? Dag Kings?

 

[hide=][/hide][hide=][/hide]

 

The connection between them is, at best, tenuous.

[Sy_Accursed]

Runescape is a violent game.

You seem to be measuring violence as gore and graphic content; this is two things separate to violence. Runescape is a violent game as a huge segment of the game is based around combat and killing; even WITHOUT gore these are still violent acts and must be seen as such.

[Ginger_Warrior]

I'm just not convinced that the graphical violence seen in console-based games has the same effect on a 12 year old with a predisposition to violent tendancies as RuneScape's random 'click-and-wait' system does, where gore is extended to red splats on a screen which look more like tomato ketchup stains than blood.

 

Frankly, the age limits agree with me. GoW2 is rated M (18+), RuneScape isn't. There's an obvious reason, which for some reason you seem intent on denying in order to make some vague, tenuous argument that apparently all kids are subject to violent images or scenes.

 

Personally, if I were a parent, I'd be more concerned about how much of my kids' free time RuneScape consumes at its so-called 'end-game' and how that impacts on their personal lives than I ever would be about them developing violent tendancies because they one-hit a greater demon.

[Sy_Accursed]

You just proved my point exactly:

Runescape is not gorey therefore you do not consider its violent content would have any impact.

While a gorey violent game you are happy to preach that the violence will influence people.

 

Not only are you contradicting yourself in saying violent games influence by applying it to one and not the other you are clearly highlighting it is NOT the violence you deem influential it is the GORE.

 

I would still personally say its a crock, but it's far more realistic to claim depictions of gore being inflicted may influence people to be more prone to violent acts than it simply is to say violence does because violence exists in so many forms such as runescape's mild form. You can't claim runescape is any less violent than a 18+ game that has gore filled depictions of assaulting monsters with swords etc as its exactly the same act.

[Ginger_Warrior]

So if I'm contradicating myself then I guess the regulators are also contradicting themselves whenever they place an M rating on a game like DA:II but fail to do so for a game like WoW or RS, both of whom are only rated T, yet both games where violence plays some part.

 

Gore is a part of violent imagery. I'm not saying it's the be-all-and-end-all of violence but it is part of it. Your argument is akin to suggesting Super Mario World has the same impact on a young child as Call of Duty does. They both, after all, contain some level of violence.

 

Such a position is clearly asanine.

[Sy_Accursed]

No The game ratings aren't contradictory.

They take account of the WHOLE package.

 

What is contradictory is to say: Violent games can influence behaviour to be violent

But then claim a game such as runescape which is violent does not count because it is not gorey.

 

My argument is you are taking the issue with the gore, not with the violent act itself as such you wording contradicts the entire argument.

You have no objection specifically to games that feature violent acts; you object to games that feature gorey violent acts. There is a fundamental difference there between what you ACTUALLY object too and what you SAY you object to.

 

My point is simple:

Violent games effecting behaviour is bs because many games feature violence without any high rating or big worry about their content.

Gorey violent games effecting behaviour may hold some truth hence they are age restricted; but I doubt the extent of that influence is as some people try to make out.

 

I totally agree that gore and violence often go hand in hand, but they are two separate things. You can have violence without gore as in runescape, super mario brother's etc but equally you can have gore without violence; surgery or a decomposing corpse can be classed as gorey but neither is violent.