US Supreme Court to Consider Law Limiting the Sale of Violent Video Games‎

[Netto Azure]

US Supreme CourtJustices to Consider Law Limiting the Sale of Violent Video Games‎
​

The Supreme Court on Monday agreed to decide whether California may forbid the sale of violent video games to children.

Lower courts have consistently struck down similar laws under the First Amendment, declining to extend obscenity principles to images of violence. The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case in the absence of disagreements in the lower courts suggests that at least some justices might be prepared to rethink how the First Amendment applies to depictions of violence, at least when they are sold to children.
The 2005 California law at issue in the case imposes $1,000 fines on stores that sell violent video games to people under 18. The law defines violent games as those "in which the range of options available to a player includes killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" in a way that is "patently offensive," appeals to minors' "deviant or morbid interests" and lacks "serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value."
A unanimous three-judge panel of the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, in San Francisco, struck down the law, rejecting what Judge Consuelo M. Callahan, writing for the panel, called "an invitation to reconsider the boundaries of the legal concept of 'obscenity' under the First Amendment."
In defending the law in court, the California officials submitted "several vignettes from the games Grand Theft Auto: Vice City, Postal 2 and Duke Nukem 3D, which demonstrate the myriad ways in which characters can kill or injure victims or adversaries," Judge Callahan wrote. But she said the "heavily edited selections" did not "include any context or possible story line."
The state urged the appeals court not to apply "strict scrutiny," the searching judicial review usually called for when content-based laws are challenged under the First Amendment. To survive strict scrutiny, laws must be narrowly tailored to promote a compelling government interest. The state instead urged the court to apply a more relaxed standard used in obscenity cases involving minors, one that requires only a showing that it was not irrational for lawmakers to find that exposure to the materials in question would harm children.
Judge Callahan rejected the looser standard, saying it was specifically rooted in the Supreme Court's "First Amendment obscenity jurisprudence, which relates to nonprotected sex-based expression — not violent content."
She added that the justification offered by the state to support the law — that violent video games cause psychological harm to children — was supported mainly by evidence based on correlation rather than causation.
Michael D. Gallagher, the president of the Entertainment Software Association, said First Amendment protections should apply to video games just as they do to books, films and music. Industry self-regulation is working, he said, and it is harder for minors to buy M-rated games than it is to buy R-rated DVDs.
The justices first considered whether to hear the case, Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association, No. 08-1448, in September and apparently put off their decision until they finished work on United States v. Stevens, last week's 8-to-1 decision striking down a federal law that made it a crime to traffic in depictions of animal cruelty.
The fact that the court decided to hear the video game case instead of sending it back to the lower courts for reconsideration in light of the Stevens decision indicates that some justices consider the two sorts of depictions distinct for purposes of the First Amendment.
In a separate development, the court turned down a request from Michigan that it address a dispute over how to prevent Asian carp from invading the Great Lakes.

Well get ready for a blockbuster Supreme Court hearing. :(​

 

[Yusshin]

Yay! I <3 this law, even if it's not in my country.

Finally some sense :|

 

[icomeanon6]

Even if this thing goes through, it's not like it's going to work. Violent games will find their way into the hands of minors whether they like it or not, so they might as well just let the video game industry regulate itself in that regard. I doubt it'll pass, anyway. All their findings are based on obviously bogus studies, and that guy in the article is right about it being easier for a kid to obtain an R-rated movie than an M-rated game.

We the minor-gamers have nothing to worry about, not even the ones who live in California.

 

[Erin]

It's always baffled me, the way things work in the U.S. (at least in this respect).

In South Africa, Europe, and most other parts of the world, openness about sex is generally accepted as a natural human impulse && process. Meanwhile, extreme violence in media is censored as unnatural, dangerous, && counterproductive. In the U.S., this seems to be reversed.

That's not to say that everyone who plays Diablo is going to become an insane psychopathic murderer. But to deny that regular exposure to violence doesn't have a psychological affect on those who play these games extensively would be foolish.

Good on the courts. Freedom of speech && expression don't equate to elimination of censorship in nessecary cases. Just as the civil liberties guaranteed in the Constitutions of the world are established to maintain free society, some forms of censorship && self-limitations for extreme cases are established for the maintenence of a stable society.

 

[shookie]

Even if this thing goes through, it's not like it's going to work. Violent games will find their way into the hands of minors whether they like it or not, so they might as well just let the video game industry regulate itself in that regard. I doubt it'll pass, anyway. All their findings are based on obviously bogus studies, and that guy in the article is right about it being easier for a kid to obtain an R-rated movie than an M-rated game.

I agree, I don't see this having a huge impact on minors gaining access to M-rated games. The legal drinking age is 21 in the US, but that doesn't stop high school students from drinking.
Sure, it will stop a 13 year old from walking into Game Stop and buying GTA with his allowance. It's not going to stop his older brother or his best friend's older brother or his own parents from going into Game Stop and buying the game for him.

The whole nudity vs. violence exposure in the U.S. thing is a different can of worms, though. >_>

 

[Erin]

The whole nudity vs. violence exposure in the U.S. thing is a different can of worms, though. >_>

Care to expound on that?? I'm curious.

 

[shookie]

Care to expound on that?? I'm curious.

Well, I've heard from people across the pond that America tends to be very prudish when it comes to nudity. Breastfeeding in public is very taboo, for example.
Violence, on the other hand, is pretty censored as well for the same reason(s) that this supposed law is coming up. It's definitely more prevalent than some cases of nudity, though.

I see the root of most of this from society's insane paranoia that because a little kid sees a gun, he'll become a sociopath and run around murdering people, or because the same little kid sees somebody breastfeeding (as in, using a body part for what it's meant to be used for), he'll grow up confused and as an outsider.

I'd get into it more since there's parts of it I feel strongly about, but I don't want to risk overstepping boundaries in the community here.

 

[Erin]

Violence, on the other hand, is pretty censored as well for the same reason(s) that this supposed law is coming up. It's definitely more prevalent than some cases of nudity, though.

I'd contest whether violence is so censored in American media, at least in relation to the rest of the Western world. When I spent a summer there, I saw more violence on television than I'd ever see back home. Additionally, you see excessively graphic video games such as "Dead Rising" being censored or outright banned by the SA && EU authorities, but being released && easily accessible for minors in the United States.

I see the root of most of this from society's insane paranoia that because a little kid sees a gun, he'll become a sociopath and run around murdering people.

That's not the point I'm trying to make. They're not gonna go murdering people, but if a child sees graphic violence excessively during stages of development, it does have an effect on their personality, just as significant exposure to anything else detrimental would. Likewise, seeing breastfeeding or nudity in art or occasionally in media isn't going to turn a child into a twisted pervert, but if they're sitting in front of porn for seven hours a day, it's going to leave its impression.

As with everything else in a consistently stable society, I believe moderation is the key.

 

[Hamilton]

either way they can't go through with it- First amendment rights

 

[Esper]

In South Africa, Europe, and most other parts of the world, openness about sex is generally accepted as a natural human impulse && process. Meanwhile, extreme violence in media is censored as unnatural, dangerous, && counterproductive. In the U.S., this seems to be reversed.

This was one of my first thoughts as well.

I'm curious to see what the court does with this. I hope it doesn't come down to a simple opinion poll of the justices on the seeing-violence-makes-you-violent vs. seeing-violence-has-no-effect-on-kids spectrum.

 

[Erin]

either way they can't go through with it- First amendment rights

First Amendment rights can be limited under exceptions of extreme obscenity.

I go to an American International School where they actually have a semester-long course on the U.S. Constituion, comparing it with our own. It's surprising how many limitations there are on the Amendment that Americans tried to use to defend nearly every kind of action they've ever taken.

The question isn't whether it violates the First Amendment, I think, as much as whether the Court will classify excessive video game violence as obscene. Lower courts have set the precedent at "no", but in global history, the higher courts don't necessarily follow lower courts' precedents.

Regrettably though, I have to agree that even if the Court rules in favour of censorship in certain cases, it'll be difficult to actually enforce.

I'm curious to see what the court does with this. I hope it doesn't come down to a simple opinion poll of the justices on the seeing-violence-makes-you-violent vs. seeing-violence-has-no-effect-on-kids spectrum.

But we all know that this is totaly what it's gonna end up being. Ironically, High Courts across the globe are some of the most politically partisan institutions in government.

 

[donavannj]

I think if they rule in favor of the state of California, they're going to completely mess up the very well designed ESRB rating system (which, in my opinion is far more balanced, fair, and a better guideline that the movie rating system employed in the US - they even explain individual ratings rulings, iirc, and consistently re-evaluate games and include locked content on the game disc in their ratings, whereas movies can get away with "unrated" content on their DVD/VHS/Blu-Ray releases D; ).

Well, I've heard from people across the pond that America tends to be very prudish when it comes to nudity. Breastfeeding in public is very taboo, for example.

This can be traced to the fact that much of the early colonial American population was Puritan, or some other Christian denomination of similar ideals.

@Hamilton: Won't stop the biased against video games older generation that inhabits the Supreme Court, though. D;

And this wouldn't stop kids from getting violent games... it'd just put the decision in the hands of the majority of parents who have no idea what's what in video games because they don't do their research before buying a game. D;

 

[.Gamer]

Dear Government,

Please stop making dumb laws that do nothing and try to focus on more important stuff like unemployment and how we are in debt up past our eyeballs to China.

Thanks,

The Rest of America

Yay! I <3 this law, even if it's not in my country.

Finally some sense :|

Law is bad, They shouldn't be allowed to tell you what you can/cannot buy just because "OMG IT VIOLENT!" They have age-related ratings on the games for a reason.

:|

 

[Yusshin]

I like any law that reduces the chance of children becoming exposed to violent (and sexual) media.

The law itself may not help all that much, but it's an effort. I'm sure a few thousands kids won't be exposed to these bad influences if this law were to pass, and I find that that's a success.

 

[Cacttus]

Dear Government,

Please stop making dumb laws that do nothing and try to focus on more important stuff like unemployment and how we are in debt up past our eyeballs to China.

Thanks,

The Rest of America

I'm with .Gamer, it's against our first amendment rights first of all and second parents should have enough sense to see what their kids are playing or how the react to certain things around them.

@Yusshin: Would you feel the same way if the law was passed in your country?

 

[shookie]

I like any law that reduces the chance of children becoming exposed to violent (and sexual) media.

The law itself may not help all that much, but it's an effort. I'm sure a few thousands kids won't be exposed to these bad influences if this law were to pass, and I find that that's a success.

It doesn't really reduce anything by a large amount. It's sort of like a slap on the wrist or hitting these companies on the nose with a newspaper and telling them "No, bad company!" when a minor gets an M-rated game. All this is going to do is just have people find more ways to get around these laws so a 12 year old can play a game not suited for him.

This can be traced to the fact that much of the early colonial American population was Puritan, or some other Christian denomination of similar ideals.

Huh, I actually didn't know that. I'm usually more aware of the effect than the cause.

 

[Erin]

I'm with .Gamer, it's against our first amendment rights first of all and second parents should have enough sense to see what their kids are playing or how the react to certain things around them.

See, there's that First Amendment thing again. =\\

The. First. Amendment. has. restrictions. in. regards. to. obscenity.

Please. understand. your. rights. before. invoking. them.

@Yusshin: Would you feel the same way if the law was passed in your country?

As a matter of fact, her country, my country, the European Union, && many others have passed laws restricting or censoring excessively violent video games.

Oddly enough, we're still getting by.

It doesn't really reduce anything by a large amount. It's sort of like a slap on the wrist or hitting these companies on the nose with a newspaper and telling them "No, bad company!" when a minor gets an M-rated game. All this is going to do is just have people find more ways to get around these laws so a 12 year old can play a game not suited for him.

In this regard, you're right.

I think though, that what this will do is provide more incentive for stores to make sure they're checking IDs, and for that matter, verifying that they aren't fake IDs.

There's nothing that can be done to prevent parents, siblings, or friends from buying M-rated games for minors. That I won't deny. But there is much that can be done to ensure that stores are honouring ESRB ratings which, as donavannj pointed out, are well devised.

As an added benefit, revenue collected from the fines can be used to fund financially-strapped local governments, as the money collected would likely go to them.

I don't see why everyone's in such an uproar about this. All it really does is give government an ability to actually enforce the law.

 

[donavannj]

I like any law that reduces the chance of children becoming exposed to violent (and sexual) media.

The law itself may not help all that much, but it's an effort. I'm sure a few thousands kids won't be exposed to these bad influences if this law were to pass, and I find that that's a success.

There's still the whole uninformed, unwilling to do research parent aspect of it. D;

That's what I feel is the core issue about violence in video games and teens getting their hands on violent games. Lack of a parent doing research before buying a game for their teen/kids. D;

 

[.Gamer]

See, there's that First Amendment thing again. =\\

The. First. Amendment. has. restrictions. in. regards. to. obscenity.

Please. understand. your. rights. before. invoking. them.

Thats true. But they cannot tell companies what they can and cannot sell. The companies are a free entity can produce whatever they want as long as there are proper labels attatched and/or warnings applied. Please. Understand. What. You. Are. Typing. Before. You. Type. It.

Also, agreeing with donovannj, if a parent is willing to buy a game for their child that is excessively violent/sexual/has goatse references, don't worry about it, its not your job, nor the governments job, nor anyone but the parent's job to worry about what goes on with that child and what video games he does/does not play.

I personally don't care if kids buy violent/sexual video games. I mean, they are going to see it sooner or later. Sheltering them only makes them turn out worse imo. They are more sheltered and more naive. People who blame their violent actions on video games are just crazy nutjobs who should be kept out of society anyway. Parents are responsible for the actions of their children. If they aren't willing ot accept that responsibility, then they ought not be parenting.

 

[donavannj]

Thats true. But they cannot tell companies what they can and cannot sell. The companies are a free entity can produce whatever they want as long as there are proper labels attatched and/or warnings applied. Please. Understand. What. You. Are. Typing. Before. You. Type. It.

Ah, but that's where you're wrong. I point to the many standards of food and product safety and the illegality of most narcotics, plus the age restrictions on alcohol and tobacco purchase and consumption.