Supreme Court Says Video Games Get First Amendment Protection: Wise Decision?
SodaHead News
2011/06/27 23:00:00
|
|
|||||
|
224 votes
|
|
81% | |||
|
37 votes
|
|
13% | |||
|
17 votes
|
|
6% | |||
In a decision sure to be cheered by any middle school kid who has ever snuck into an R-rated movie, the Supreme Court declared on Monday that video games are worthy of the same constitutional free speech protections as movies, art and music.
Translation: a California law that attempted to make it illegal to rent or sell mature-rated video games to underage consumers is unconstitutional.
The 7-2 decision put to rest a bill signed into law five years ago by former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that prohibited the sale or rental of games that portray “killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being'' to people under18.
The bill argued the video games were different from other forms of art because they are "interactive," requiring a kid to push a button over-and-over again to kill a baddie, instead of just reading about a murder in a book. A 2007 decision reversed the bill, which led to the Supreme Court petition.
The decision was greeted with relief by video game fans and creators, who feared that a decision to reverse the appeal would have a negative effect on creativity in video game design. In the end, though, the Supreme Court decided that the California law was too broad and that though video games are different from other types of art, they are still a form of communication.
"Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world)," read the decision, which also seemed to swat away psychological studies that purport to show a connection between exposure to violent games and harmful effects on children.
Game-makers can keep serving up carnage and sexual content, but as in the past, kids just need to get their parents' permission, or figure out a clever work around.
Do you support the Supreme Court's video game ruling?
Translation: a California law that attempted to make it illegal to rent or sell mature-rated video games to underage consumers is unconstitutional.
The 7-2 decision put to rest a bill signed into law five years ago by former California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger that prohibited the sale or rental of games that portray “killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being'' to people under18.
The bill argued the video games were different from other forms of art because they are "interactive," requiring a kid to push a button over-and-over again to kill a baddie, instead of just reading about a murder in a book. A 2007 decision reversed the bill, which led to the Supreme Court petition.
The decision was greeted with relief by video game fans and creators, who feared that a decision to reverse the appeal would have a negative effect on creativity in video game design. In the end, though, the Supreme Court decided that the California law was too broad and that though video games are different from other types of art, they are still a form of communication.
"Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas—and even social messages—through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world)," read the decision, which also seemed to swat away psychological studies that purport to show a connection between exposure to violent games and harmful effects on children.
Game-makers can keep serving up carnage and sexual content, but as in the past, kids just need to get their parents' permission, or figure out a clever work around.
Do you support the Supreme Court's video game ruling?
Top Opinion
-
XXrawwwrXX 2011/06/28 00:29:31
That said - it's really up to the parent to "police" this type of thing. But I'll hazard - any parent that allows their child to play video games or watch movies/tv they've failed to screen themselves first - is making a huge mistake that they'll later come to regret. Know what your kids are doing, viewing, playing etc. Best decision you'll ever make.
I didn't allow my children to play these games when they were younger and I hope that the companies that create them go out of business. I think their product is disgusting and I tried to instill in my children a sense of judgment that would allow them to see for themselves that gratuitous violence is not something to be enjoyed for its "entertainment" value. Whether I succeeded or not, it is the family that should bear this responsibility, not the government.
Protecting the children is the parents job, not the USSC!
We will continue to do all these things.
People decry video games way too often. Our industry has one of the best track records for following our own ratings guidelines. There are those who want to ban ANY sale of violent games, or games with certain forms of mature content. This is why we have ratings. The rating give people the freedom to choose. We happen to require an adult to choose for a minor, but we give choice. Anyone who truly would outright try to ban a video game sale due to content is EQUAL to a book burner. I have no respect for book burners, and no respect for for video game neighsayers.
You know, the same Schwartzenegger who ripped peoples' arms off and slaughtered bad guys by the thousands in the his movies.
That is not a law. It's a voluntary agreement between theaters, stores, and Hollywood.
Wrong. Movie ratings carry no legal weight, the MPAA is just a trade organization. Their ratings are a voluntary arrangement made inside the mass-market movie industry. Theaters and stores who ignore the ratings will probably piss off their distributors and face contractual repercussions, but viewers can't get in trouble for it.
It's pretty creepy that anyone thinks the MPAA has legal authority.