Supreme Court Rules on Landmark Case involving Violent Video Games

WASHINGTON—The Supreme Court ruled Monday that a California law banning the sale of violent videogames to minors is unconstitutional.
The court, in a 7-2 vote, said the law violated First Amendment free-speech protections. "Even where the protection of children is the object, the constitutional limits on governmental action apply," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in an 18-page opinion, which was joined by four other justices.

online.wsj.com...

A quote from Justice Scalia himself on the issue:

Disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression.

This is quite a landmark case. What has been done today is basically legitimize video games as art and give them the same status of self-regulation from their ESRB that movies enjoy from the MPAA. I think that there was more behind this ruling than free speech of course. There was an obvious corporate interest in the Court striking down the Californian law. Still that doesn't make the ruling any less right.

www.abovetopsecret.com...

they need violent video games, it is the military training of the 21st century. They are just using the freedom of expression as a cover, they won't use that same argument when it comes to censoring the web over "disgusting material" i.e. the truth.

reply to post by filosophia


Are violent films needed to desensitize people to violence too?

Don't be ridiculous. Video games are art, no matter what form they take or what their subject is.


@FortAnthem

Are you going to post anything more substantial than a link?

Originally posted by SG-17
reply to post by filosophia

 

Are violent films needed to desensitize people to violence too?

Yes they are. It's not some ridiculous theory.

reply to post by BlackStar99


Yes it is. It is a ridiculous theory. Like all theories in psychology, it seeks to paint the human psyche with a broad brush.

I grew up watching faces of death while eating pizza and spaghetti, trying to out gross my friends. We were real dorks. I have been exposed to some pretty gory stuff in my life. And, after all of that, I am more repulsed by violence and death than i ever could have believed I could be.

Desensitized? Far from it. I am hypersensitive to it. Not that I cannot be around an injured person who is bleeding from a cut finger. But I have no desire to see real death or gore, and am repulsed by the thought.

reply to post by SG-17


While no fan of violent video games myself, I think this is a good decision.

PARENTS need to protect their children, and have control over what they see, buy, play with, watch, etc. IMHO, too many parents want to make society babysit their kids and do their jobs for them. They buy them every possible means of accessing content that they really dont need to be exposed to, and then moo about how horrible it is that all that stuff is out there for their kids to get into.

Originally posted by bigfatfurrytexan
reply to post by BlackStar99

 

Yes it is. It is a ridiculous theory. Like all theories in psychology, it seeks to paint the human psyche with a broad brush.

I grew up watching faces of death while eating pizza and spaghetti, trying to out gross my friends. We were real dorks. I have been exposed to some pretty gory stuff in my life. And, after all of that, I am more repulsed by violence and death than i ever could have believed I could be.

Desensitized? Far from it. I am hypersensitive to it. Not that I cannot be around an injured person who is bleeding from a cut finger. But I have no desire to see real death or gore, and am repulsed by the thought.

I think it's rediculous to think that sitting in front of the tv for a 1/4 of your life(on average) doesn't have an effect on soceity. We can't know who's gone off and killed someone because of media, but you can definately see the effects it has. People as a whole have almost no respect for human life anymore. Alot of people can't stand an animal being killed in a movie, but if a person does nobody cares.

The millions of Iraq and Afghan civillians that have been killed phases almost no one, even the kids being killed by NATO in libya gets no thought.

Also I don't know if you pay attention to the youth, but something is very very wrong, and I blame media and parents who let the tv babysit their children.

Originally posted by filosophia
they need violent video games, it is the military training of the 21st century. They are just using the freedom of expression as a cover, they won't use that same argument when it comes to censoring the web over "disgusting material" i.e. the truth.

LOL no its not its entertainment i cant believe some people on here actually believing that, its not a training tool, sure some video games do involve military recruiting , i noticed that pattern after some people played battlefield 2 and wanted to kill some terrorists, they thought it would it be as easy in the game, maybe they regret that now.


Like a user said here, video games are art.

One of the rare cases where the court is not divided idealogically:

Justice Breyer's dissent criticized that divergence, saying it didn't make sense to ban the sale of a magazine showing a nude woman to 13-year-olds while allowing them to buy video games in which they commit virtual violence against women.

I would have to agree with Breyer on this point. I don't think video games should be banned but if you allow a minor to purchase, say, GTA 4 with strip clubs and prostitutes (with the ability to kill them) then you should allow a Playboy as well.