Supreme Court Rules in Favor of Videogames

[gostchiken]

Oh frabjous day! Callooh! Callay!

 

[King Toasty]

A victory for gamers and free speech advocates everywhere!

Sweet. Now if Canada could get on this, I'd be a happy platypus.

Ontario decided a few years ago that ESRB ratings have the force of law here [http://www.ofrb.gov.on.ca/english/page15.htm]. Not sure how it works in the rest of Canada.

I have problems with that policy, because I think you can either let an industry self-regulate, or impose government regulation with an appeal process. You might have issues with one or the other, but they both have legitimate points on their side. However Ontario's half-measure where they're basically outsourcing government regulation to the industry itself doesn't sit right with me at all. Private industry should not have the power to create (or enforce) the law. But that's the state of affairs here in Ontario.

Here in BC, at least, it's the same thing. I'm not against individual stores or chains enforcing the ESRB ratings (which really kinda suck), but when the government steps in to make it law, it's too much.

 

[Scars Unseen]

Games should be treated equal to films in my opinion.

And now, by Supreme Court ruling, they are.

 

[Sixcess]

A nice takeaway from Scalia

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). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.

Does anyone else think that this sounds like Scalia has been watching Extra Credits?

Really, read it to yourself in the EC voice. It fits perfectly.

 

[darksaber64x]

Good. I expected this to be the outcome, but I'm glad to know it did finally happen.

 

[omega 616]

Yay for games, I especially love this one line "Crudely violent video games, tawdry TV shows, and cheap novels and magazines are no less forms of speech than The Divine Comedy" Oh, snap son!

If the human centipede can be saved from being burned by fire 'cos it falls under the category of "art" then so can games like Bioshock.

(yes, I have been waiting years to use that vid)

 

[ResonanceGames]

So children can now get their hands on violent games legally?
How is this a good thing?

I thought it would be better to establish better boundaries not demolish them.

Games should be treated equal to films in my opinion.

Some films are made for adults and shouldn't be viewed by children legally.

Please read the thread.
There are no laws in the US forbidding minors from viewing 17+ films, or indeed reading smutty romance novels. And, as has been said again and again and again, retailers refuse to sell mature rated games to minors. If this law had passed, games would not receive equal first amendment treatment with other forms of media.

I agree, read the thread AND read what Scalia wrote. He addressed -- and demolished -- the idea that violent media can or should be legally banned from minors.

If you think that simulated violence is so bad that it's up to the government to spend millions of dollars, create enormous financial and legal hassles for an entire industry, and send people to jail just to make it a little harder for minors to get violent games (like it would really stop most of them), then I suggest you sit down a minute and think about what you're really proposing, because it's ludicrous.

It's beyond clear that the current self-regulatory system works fairly well, and even if it didn't this law would still be unconstitutional, misguided, and overkill.

 

[Vault boy Eddie]

Is there something else on the bill that was bad? Because kids not getting on violent video games and spamming the N word doesn't sound like a bad thing to me.

 

[WouldYouKindly]

You can always trust the Supreme Court in cases like this. It's just the ones that have an impact on corporate influence that I never like.

 

[Geeky Anomaly]

Check out this totally awesome Steam screenshot showing the exaltation of the industry!

 

[Sartan0]

Very pleased! I shall be reading the entire opinion myself to see what I make of it but great news indeed!

 

[frehls]

hue

 

[zombie711]

VICTORY

 

[Timbydude]

I tried talking to the commenters on the CNN article about why this was a good thing, but...ugh, they just frustrated me too much. Far too many people in this country are just throwing logic out the window so they can stick with what was alright in the 1970's.

But yes, this was the landmark victory we needed. It's amazing to see video games' legitimacy finally realized by the government.

 

[coldasicedrummer]

But...wouldn't said ban have (at least on paper) led to a severe reduction in the amount of obnoxious 15 year olds that help make online MP games a wretched hive of scum and villainy? Isn't this a phyrric victory? Perhaps I'm misguided...

 

[DudeistBelieve]

My thoughts from another thread
Heres the decision, I suggest you read that if you really want to get a sense of how good of a result this is. http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf

Scalia's majority decision declares video games as non-unique with regards to regulation (at least with the current state of scholarly debate on the subject), that is you can't single out video games without hitting cartoons or movies. That is the absolute best result we could have hoped for. A nice takeaway from Scalia

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). That suffices to confer First Amendment protection.

Also interesting is how much of a bullet we dodged with regards to the Alito concurrence. Had Chief Justice Roberts wanted to throw his weight around that concurrence or something quite similar to it could have been the majority decision and that would have been almost as bad as a loss.

I enjoyed this part...

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.

Suck it Fox!

I read somewhere that playing violent video games won't make you a violent person, but violent people enjoy playing violent video games. ergo, playing violent video games is a risk factor, like how if you smoke cigerates or eat McDonalds often enough is a risk factor for heart desiea. but you can still smoke and eat unhealthy and never have a heart attack.

 

[bootz]

hooray so why was california trying to impose this rule

At the age of 16 you can Hunt with a REAL GUN in california(by yourself).
You can hunt with a parent at 12 with a REAL GUN.
Real guns good Fake guns bad.

I'm very glad it got shot down it doesn't make sense.

 

[ResonanceGames]

But...wouldn't said ban have (at least on paper) led to a severe reduction in the amount of obnoxious 15 year olds that help make online MP games a wretched hive of scum and villainy? Isn't this a phyrric victory? Perhaps I'm misguided...

I know you're joking, but that's like saying since minors can't buy porn, none of them have any...right.

This law wouldn't have done dick. And unlike porn, parents would have still been allowed to give their kids "violent" games, stores just wouldn't be legally allowed to sell them to kids.

 

[Yureina]

YAY!!!

I gave a little cheer when I saw this article, to the surprise of everyone in my house (since I almost never get even slightly loud). Good to see I was right to maintain my faith in SCOTUS!