Gaming Faces Its "Single Most Important Challenge" at the Supreme Court

[cobra_ky]

You misunderstand. I agree with the law to prevent Little Timmy of 5-years old from buying Blood Slaughter: Death Murder Rampage. I don't agree, however, in trying to bend that into preventing Blood Slaughter: Death Murder Rampage from being created.

He said he agrees with the law, but he feels that movies and music should be treated the same way. Thus, movies and music should be included in the law.

So no, it's not either/or. And I'm inclined to agree. If violent video games are bad, violent movies and music are just as bad. They should all be restricted from sale to minors, but available to adults who want them.

We'll get two birds stoned at once here.

I don't misunderstand at all. The simple fact is this: If you agree with the law, then you agree that videogames aren't entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other forms of media. That means you don't think videogames should be treated the same as movies and music. You can't have it both ways.

Including movies and music in the law? Can't be done, because it's already been well-established that they are protected forms of speech under the First Amendment. If you want to start messing with the Constitution to give the government discretionary power over what you can play (and watch, and listen to, and read), that's a different matter entirely. And what a shame if you're willing to voluntarily go down that path.

We have laws to protect children from exposure to things like pornography. Nobody complains about the restrictions placed on that. Why is pornography not subject to first amendment rights? In the US, we may overstate sex, but we understate violence.

Actually I complain about the restrictions on pornography all the time. Porn isn't protected under the First Amendment because the Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment didn't cover obscenity. Unfortunately the Supreme court could never really agree on what "obscenity" meant, so eventually they just left it up to the states and communities to decide. Coincidentally, this happened in <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California>another case from California.

I am willing to have the government tell people under a certain age that they're not allowed to buy certain things. Cigarettes, alcohol, and pornography are all great examples of how you can restrict objects from sale to minors, yet still have them available to adults. You're kind of acting like Fox News a bit here...why don't you chill out an not insult me by telling me how it's a shame that I feel a certain way. Thanks.

Cigarettes and alcohol aren't constitutionally protected. neither is hardcore pornography. Books, movies, and music (as long as they aren't "obscene"), however, are. What you're asking for would require overturning a centuries-old interpretation of the First Amendment and would open the door for governments to ban practically anything they don't like.

 

[Krakyn]

You misunderstand. I agree with the law to prevent Little Timmy of 5-years old from buying Blood Slaughter: Death Murder Rampage. I don't agree, however, in trying to bend that into preventing Blood Slaughter: Death Murder Rampage from being created.

He said he agrees with the law, but he feels that movies and music should be treated the same way. Thus, movies and music should be included in the law.

So no, it's not either/or. And I'm inclined to agree. If violent video games are bad, violent movies and music are just as bad. They should all be restricted from sale to minors, but available to adults who want them.

We'll get two birds stoned at once here.

I don't misunderstand at all. The simple fact is this: If you agree with the law, then you agree that videogames aren't entitled to the same First Amendment protections as other forms of media. That means you don't think videogames should be treated the same as movies and music. You can't have it both ways.

Including movies and music in the law? Can't be done, because it's already been well-established that they are protected forms of speech under the First Amendment. If you want to start messing with the Constitution to give the government discretionary power over what you can play (and watch, and listen to, and read), that's a different matter entirely. And what a shame if you're willing to voluntarily go down that path.

We have laws to protect children from exposure to things like pornography. Nobody complains about the restrictions placed on that. Why is pornography not subject to first amendment rights? In the US, we may overstate sex, but we understate violence.

Actually I complain about the restrictions on pornography all the time. Porn isn't protected under the First Amendment because the Supreme Court decided that the First Amendment didn't cover obscenity. Unfortunately the Supreme court could never really agree on what "obscenity" meant, so eventually they just left it up to the states and communities to decide. Coincidentally, this happened in <a href=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Miller_v._California>another case from California.

I am willing to have the government tell people under a certain age that they're not allowed to buy certain things. Cigarettes, alcohol, and pornography are all great examples of how you can restrict objects from sale to minors, yet still have them available to adults. You're kind of acting like Fox News a bit here...why don't you chill out an not insult me by telling me how it's a shame that I feel a certain way. Thanks.

Cigarettes and alcohol aren't constitutionally protected. neither is hardcore pornography. Books, movies, and music (as long as they aren't "obscene"), however, are. What you're asking for would require overturning a centuries-old interpretation of the First Amendment and would open the door for governments to ban practically anything they don't like.

For children. We're still hung up on the slippery slope argument that this will affect all of us.

This is just for children. They have less rights than adults already, and rightly so. For children, this makes sense.

 

[WorldCritic]

If only Phoenix Wright were here, he'd know what to do.

 

[cobra_ky]

For children. We're still hung up on the slippery slope argument that this will affect all of us.

This is just for children. They have less rights than adults already, and rightly so. For children, this makes sense.

The Constitution doesn't say anything about children or making sense. The First Amendment simply says that "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." Most books, movies, and music are considered protected speech. Therefore there's no way to do what you're suggesting without redefining what constitutes speech or rewriting the Constitution.

 

[Ian S]

Just about everything that can be said about this has already been said, and the general consensus is that SCOTUS should uphold the 9th circuit court rulings. But there is one other thing I'd like to add:

The state of California is worried about their children being exposed to violent video games, yet apparently these very same kids that they want to protect so badly are having oral sex right in the classroom! Just [a href=http://www.thelynpost.com/?p=713]read this article[/a].

So...what's wrong with this picture? Looks to me like between this and their budget problems, the state of California's priorities are really out of whack.

 

[Andy Chalk]

Jesus Christ, are you being hard-headed on purpose!?

As someone above already stated, if preventing minors from buying games inappropriate for their age automatically means that the government can tell you what you can and can't play, then I'm sure you're perfectly fine with relaxing laws to let a kid watch 18-rated films in the cinema and buy porn, right?

Is this too hard a fucking idea to get?

As someone above already stated, but I'm repeating because I find it mightily amusing, there is no such law for R-rated films. (Porn, yes, which has long been recognized as one of very few exceptions to the First Amendment.) The MPAA employs a rating system which movie theaters voluntarily employee to keep kids out of theaters, but a law? No such thing.

Just a thought, but you might want to put together some idea of what you're talking about before you start calling people names.

 

[Nevyrmoore]

Jesus Christ, are you being hard-headed on purpose!?

As someone above already stated, if preventing minors from buying games inappropriate for their age automatically means that the government can tell you what you can and can't play, then I'm sure you're perfectly fine with relaxing laws to let a kid watch 18-rated films in the cinema and buy porn, right?

Is this too hard a fucking idea to get?

As someone above already stated, but I'm repeating because I find it mightily amusing, there is no such law for R-rated films. (Porn, yes, which has long been recognized as one of very few exceptions to the First Amendment.) The MPAA employs a rating system which movie theaters voluntarily employee to keep kids out of theaters, but a law? No such thing.

Just a thought, but you might want to put together some idea of what you're talking about before you start calling people names.

Yes, that is a bit of a slip up on my part. Although that's like saying Christopher Walken is a bit weird and Christopher Reeves was a bit paralysed. I'll try not to be such a gigantic twatcicle in the future.

Anyway, no law, as I said, I find that to be rather odd myself. As you've noticed, we do it a bit differently here in ol' Blighty. Specifically, one of our laws state that it is illegal to sell any BBFC-rated material to anyone under-age. And honestly, I don't see what the problem with that is, or how it goes against the first amendment. Surely making sure that cinemas, video stores and games stores have to not serve anyone obviously under-age for specific content is a good thing? Yes, they'll still get it, but then it will be with adult permission, which I'm all for if they truly believe the child is mature enough for the content, and not just buying because they don't know better.

 

[Andy Chalk]

But the First Amendment is absolute. "Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances." And I think where it gets dicey in the minds of a lot of people (myself included) is that if videogames are denied the same protections that movies, music and books are given, then they're forever stigmatized as different and dangerous. That in itself is enough of a reason to fight these laws.

Maybe there's a little bit of paranoia in the American attitude. I'm also inclined to think that there's not quite enough paranoia in the UK attitude, where CCTV monitoring and an overly-enthusiastic police force look to be creating a disturbingly Orwellian society. That may sound paranoid too. But given the choice, in this matter at least I'd rather err on the side of personal liberty and freedom.

 

[BrionJames]

Hey everybody look the "supreme" court is flashing red. We're about to win!