Supreme Court ruling on violent video games

[Guardian of Takhisis]

First off let me apologize if this in the wrong section. Not sure if I should put it in video games or if it's ok in the cigar lounge. Also not sure if an article about this exists already. I did some searching and couldn't find anything.

The Supreme Court has finally ruled on the constitutionality of the California law (Brown v. EMA) that would have banned the sale of violent video games to minors.

The court struck down the law 7-2 using the First Amendment as the reasoning. Justice Scalia wrote the majority opinion, with Justices Thomas and Breyer in dissent.

"The act does not comport with the First Amendment," opens the opinion's syllabus. "Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they communicate ideas through familiar literary devices and features distinctive to the medium. And 'the basic principles of freedom of speech . . . do not vary' with a new and different communication medium."

In 2005, the state of California passed a law that banned the sale of violent video games to anyone under 18, and required a warning sticker on the package beyond the normal ESRB rating. The law stipulated a maximum fine of $1,000 for each infraction. Then governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed the bill into law. The case previously bore his name because he represented the state of California, which is why current governor Jerry Brown's name is now on the case.

Proponents of the law claim that violent video games can be harmful to minors and should be specially treated as such, while opponents rally under the First Amendment banner and that the ESRB's ratings are sufficient.

What's next? Nothing for this particular law says Tom Goldstein, publisher of the court analysis SCOTUS blog. "For those waiting on the video games case, if your side loses, you cannot just hit restart, respawn, and try again."

Still, that doesn't mean that other states could try and pass similar, but differently worded laws to try and re-state their case. However, by the Supreme Court ruling on it, it wouldn't seem to give future laws a lot of wiggle room.

There's more in the article that is in issue 220 of Game Informer. I am definitely in favor of this position. I remember reading about this in an earlier issue of game informer and was wondering what the ruling was. In the article in game informer of my favorite quotes is from Justice Thomas where he states "that minors have no free speech rights whatsoever without a parent's prior consent." This really scares me that there our people out there that feel this way. From what I gather from this remark is that he feels that no minor can complain about anything or protest anything without first getting permission from their mom and dad. Another thing I don't like is how Justice Breyer just dismisses this and says all they have to do now is make the laws more narrowly tailored to survive scrutiny. When will they learn that it's not going to work. They don't understand that some video game retailers already won't sell M rated games to minors anyway. I read on other articles that places that are really bad about selling M rated games to minors are the big stores like Wal-mart and the like but that smaller hobby shops like Gamestop and EB games won't sell to minors without an adult present. I think it's because sometimes the employees at Wal-mart are just there to get a paycheck and don't care. Another article on that same site is this one.
http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/archive/2011/06/27/parents-television-council-denounces-supreme-court-ruling.aspx
This one really upsets me too. The part I'm most upset about is the one line that says "The Court has provided children with a Constitutionally-protected end-run on parental authority." I don't believe that. All it's saying is that once again it's up to the parent's be more aware of what their kids are buying rather then just ignoring it and when you find that game get pissed because your kid is playing a violent video game and the stores shouldn't have sold it to them. If you tell your kid not to buy that violent video game because you feel it's to violent and they buy it anyway then all you do is take it from them and return it. Get more involved in your child's life, it's called being a parent. The other part is where they say there are studies that show that violent video games affect children. I believe this to be a falsehood. There have been multiple studies proving the exact opposite. What do you think? Do you agree with the supreme court and it's ruling? How do you feel about some of the things said by those that agree with the original law and how they feel about violent video games?

 

[H33LTurn]

I remember a time when parents could curse, drink, and watch shows with sex in them and it didnt mess up the minds of their kids. Apparently thats not the case today. People these days dont take the time to say this guy is a gangster rapper and the only way he makes his money is through preaching violence, Terminator gets away with shooting a bunch of people because this is fiction, porn is for adults and until you're much older its not wise to watch these videos. Maybe they do say it down the line but they dont enforce it. Thats why we need so many limitations on things like video games these days. Kids immediately want to emulate everything they see without thinking it through. Yes, people under the age of 18 are capable of shooting people, raping people, drinking excessively among other stupid stuff because they are still in an impressionable age. Its when they get to the age of 18 and have to start facing life on their own that some make the effort to think this through. I'm all for freedom but what business does someone underage have buying a violent game? They're capable of hiding it from their parents so they have no idea whats influencing them. Sure, some kids can handle the games and to those I say it cant hurt for an adult to go and buy the game for them. Its a way of accepting responsibility for what your child is going to spend some serious time with in the future. When they're 18 they can accept responsibility for themselves.

 

[Guardian of Takhisis]

I respectfully have to disagree with a few things you posted. I'll address them here.

Thats why we need so many limitations on things like video games these days. Kids immediately want to emulate everything they see without thinking it through. Yes, people under the age of 18 are capable of shooting people, raping people, drinking excessively among other stupid stuff because they are still in an impressionable age.

This may be the case but if their parents are involved more in their life and inform the child that what they are playing is not real and that if someone does that in real life they have to pay the consequences.

Its when they get to the age of 18 and have to start facing life on their own that some make the effort to think this through. When they're 18 they can accept responsibility for themselves.

I don't believe that there's a magic switch that turns on when a child turns 18 that makes them suddenly understand that what they do could have consequences. There are some 18 year olds that are more childish and less wiling to accept their actions then a child who is 13 or 14 years old. I believe that if a child is taught at an early age by their parent they can easily understand that some actions have consequences. Look at some of the people on this website. There are definitely a few that are under the age of 18 and they know that they can't just go out and shoot somebody even if they play it on a video game or see it on tv. I feel that the kids that are more impressionable to violent video games already have the tendencies to do the type of things that they end up emulating from the video game. With your comment about the child buying the games behind the parent's back that's easily solved. Become more active in your child's life. Look at what they are buying. Check their room every once in a while. Also if they want to play the game don't let them play it all the time. Only let them play it for maybe an hour each day and make them go outside or play with their friends. I think all this boils down to parents taking a more active role in their child's life and not using a video game as a babysitter.

I remember a time when parents could curse, drink, and watch shows with sex in them and it didnt mess up the minds of their kids.

I believe that you can do most of those things today as long as you set a set of guidelines and rules for the child to follow when it comes to them doing these things.

 

[Darkshot77]

I can not understand why video games get such a bad rap. The labels set off by the ESRB and the same as the ones for movies and for television. So why focus on video games. What makes them the scapegoat. What is the difference between Call of Duty, a war novel that uses foul language and is graphic, and a modern war movie. Nothing, same story delivered in a different medium. If other forms of fictional media are protected under the first amendment, video games should be too. Ultimately like in everything it goes down to parental supervision

Excuse me as I pull from personal experience.

My father was never a big fan of his children playing video games (condition) when it encompassed too much of our time. He and my mother regulated how long and what we were playing, they did this for all typed of media: TV, Movies, music, and the internet. Now I have played and still do play a ton of video games. Do I consider my self unstable, no. I came out ok, why, cause I had parents that cared. Do I have an expansive imagination based off of all the mystical worlds I have played in, yes. Is that a problem, no. I learned at a young age what was real and what was fake. That is why I am ok with professional wrestling, that is why I don't go out and try those things on my brother, cause I know they are trained professionals. This applies to all forms of fictional media, be it books, television or games.

Children who are raised by caring parents will have no issues with playing violent video games before they are ready to understand it. Parents need to start taking an active roll in the upbringing of their children. They need to find the balance between neglect and overprotective. It is a fine line, but it can be done.

 

[Remy LaCroix]

I don't agree with the ruling, but I'd be a hypocrite if I supported it. I believe in freedom of information for everyone, whether it's news or books or movies or video games or music, regardless of age. One side of me agrees that video games rated M shouldn't be sold to minors, while another side of me doesn't want to deny video games with a deep story from minors. But I do hate it when I go to GameStop and I see a kid using their grandmother to buy Call of Duty: Black Ops while the store worker tells them all about specials on items and stuff and Xbox Live points and whatnot -- I'm damn sure grandma doesn't know what the worker is talking about.

 

[ABMorales787]

I don't agree with the ruling, but I'd be a hypocrite if I supported it. I believe in freedom of information for everyone, whether it's news or books or movies or video games or music, regardless of age. One side of me agrees that video games rated M shouldn't be sold to minors, while another side of me doesn't want to deny video games with a deep story from minors. But I do hate it when I go to GameStop and I see a kid using their grandmother to buy Call of Duty: Black Ops while the store worker tells them all about specials on items and stuff and Xbox Live points and whatnot -- I'm damn sure grandma doesn't know what the worker is talking about.

Children aren't allowed into "R" rated movies. The "R" is given because it has been deemed "not suited for children". Most probably because of excessive blood, nudity or anything else someone under-aged shouldn't pay attention to. Basically what you are saying is that if the quality is good, we should ignore the negative aesthetic qualities it has? Because that sounds like a damn good excuse to go look up porn and say you watched it because of the good backstory and not the dude going up the lady's "backstory". The child should be under parental supervision until considered an adult. That means he/she should abide by the parent's rules. Most parents don't want their kids watching anything violent. No, not because of fear of them trying to pull of Fatalities on each other, but because it can aid in developing erratic behavior, rebellion and such. And in time, that can develop to much more. This law is aiding parents. Because kids can be sneaky bastards. I know I was.

 

[The 1-2-3 Killam]

I am so glad that video games now have the same first amendment rights as other forms of art and media. Like or not, video games have become a way of story telling, and are a huge influence on culture and young modern society. There is a pretty fair ratings system already in place, and a person under the age of 17 cannot buy an M rated video game in the United States. If that law passed, it almost makes the whole system put in place BY THE VIDEO GAME INDUSTRY look pointless...

I think the industries should police themselves as they have been doing successfully for years, and stop letting large government get involved in every damn angle! Sooner or later we could end up like Australia, whose video games are so policed that half of them don't get released and the ones that do cost upwards of $100 to own. Seriously...a single copy of Halo: Reach will run you $100 down under...

 

[Dilligaf]

Its all the same thing over & over again.

What kind of world do we live in where something is banned because if what "IT MAY DO" to our younger generation.

Its just a typical nanny state where a politician can ban somat with out checking it out for themselves.

The ratings are there for a reason I know this, but if a kid wants somat bad enough they will get their hands on it one way or another.

As a parent myself, I ALWAYS check the game out whether it be via demos, vids on youtube, whatever before I even let my kids touch the game.

But the simple fact of the matter is my kids are WAY TOO advance for little kiddies games, so I do let them play 18 rated games once I deem them fit.

But people blaming games for what others go out and do to others is absurd, my kids do know the difference between fantasy & reality, but for those who dont thats a problem to be identified by their parents.

My kids are 15 & 16 respectively.