ktbcca
6th Aug 2010, 4:17 AM
It came to my attention today via facebook that the U.S. Supreme Court has agreed to make a decision on whether or not a law prohibiting the sale (or rental) of violent videos games to minors (under 18) is unconstitutional under the first amendment (freedom of speech).
From what I gather the law imposes strict fines on any company that sells or rents violent video games to minors and also wants those games to be labelled clearly as 18+.
This:
http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/Schwarzenegger_Eagle%20Forum%20Amicus_07.19.10.pdf
is in support of the law. A lot is said about the effect of violent video games on children, going as far as to say a child playing a violent game is nearly equivalent to a child joining a gang. It also mentions that playing a video game is not free speech because it is classified as "conduct". It compares video games to playing black jack when it attempts to clarify what "conduct" is, and playing black jack is not free speech. I definitely recommend reading it.
This:
http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/EMA%20v%20Schwarzenegger_EMA%20and%20ESA%20Opp%20Cert.pdf
is in support of the decision the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made declaring the law unconstitutional.
It argues that video games, like art and music, contain the type of expression that is protected by the first amendment. It also explains that the ESRB rating system is clearly enough as it is very widely used and has made a great impact. I also highly recommend reading this.
I absolutely did not cover all the arguments made so like I said, I recommend reading both.
Personally, I 100% agree with the EMA. I do agree that a state can pick and chose what is and isn't appropriate for minors as a way to control or protect them. The ESRB is there for a reason, and it works for a reason. The ratings are not tainted by any political or personal beliefs and parents can easily access them and decide what they think is best for their children.
If books, movies, and music are all free speech, then video games are as well. In my opinion, playing a video game is like watching a movie, reading a book, AND listening to music (the soundtrack) all at the same time. It isn't just like playing black jack, it's a form of expression depending on how you go about playing the game. Also, buying a video game falls under free speech just like buying a book does. If I buy a book about Nazis it could mean one of many things but that doesn't matter, I have the right to buy that book. If I buy a video game about Nazis, it's the same deal.
I am not one to believe that video games with violence cause violence. My husband once told me playing video games is what kept him from killing himself or someone else at one point in his life. He was able to go into the game and forget about all his anger and worries. There is absolutely no concrete evidence that these games cause violent behavior.
I could go on, but I really want to hear other opinions.
Are video games protected under the first amendment?
Do you think this law should be upheld?
EDIT: I would like to add a link to a petition against this law, if you're interested.
http://action.theeca.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1781
PS-Although I do live in Canada, I am a US citizen so this does concern me.
PPS- Did a thorough search and did not find any threads on this topic, please point me in the right direction if I missed it.
From what I gather the law imposes strict fines on any company that sells or rents violent video games to minors and also wants those games to be labelled clearly as 18+.
This:
http://mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/Schwarzenegger_Eagle%20Forum%20Amicus_07.19.10.pdf
is in support of the law. A lot is said about the effect of violent video games on children, going as far as to say a child playing a violent game is nearly equivalent to a child joining a gang. It also mentions that playing a video game is not free speech because it is classified as "conduct". It compares video games to playing black jack when it attempts to clarify what "conduct" is, and playing black jack is not free speech. I definitely recommend reading it.
This:
http://www.mediacoalition.org/mediaimages/EMA%20v%20Schwarzenegger_EMA%20and%20ESA%20Opp%20Cert.pdf
is in support of the decision the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals made declaring the law unconstitutional.
It argues that video games, like art and music, contain the type of expression that is protected by the first amendment. It also explains that the ESRB rating system is clearly enough as it is very widely used and has made a great impact. I also highly recommend reading this.
I absolutely did not cover all the arguments made so like I said, I recommend reading both.
Personally, I 100% agree with the EMA. I do agree that a state can pick and chose what is and isn't appropriate for minors as a way to control or protect them. The ESRB is there for a reason, and it works for a reason. The ratings are not tainted by any political or personal beliefs and parents can easily access them and decide what they think is best for their children.
If books, movies, and music are all free speech, then video games are as well. In my opinion, playing a video game is like watching a movie, reading a book, AND listening to music (the soundtrack) all at the same time. It isn't just like playing black jack, it's a form of expression depending on how you go about playing the game. Also, buying a video game falls under free speech just like buying a book does. If I buy a book about Nazis it could mean one of many things but that doesn't matter, I have the right to buy that book. If I buy a video game about Nazis, it's the same deal.
I am not one to believe that video games with violence cause violence. My husband once told me playing video games is what kept him from killing himself or someone else at one point in his life. He was able to go into the game and forget about all his anger and worries. There is absolutely no concrete evidence that these games cause violent behavior.
I could go on, but I really want to hear other opinions.
Are video games protected under the first amendment?
Do you think this law should be upheld?
EDIT: I would like to add a link to a petition against this law, if you're interested.
http://action.theeca.com/p/dia/action/public/?action_KEY=1781
PS-Although I do live in Canada, I am a US citizen so this does concern me.
PPS- Did a thorough search and did not find any threads on this topic, please point me in the right direction if I missed it.