SCOTUS: Video games are protected speech

For discussion of video games, and their theory and practice, as well as the social impact of such.
Post Reply
User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

SCOTUS: Video games are protected speech

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:07 am

Borrowed from AF.com:
Kirby wrote:Another day, another busted testicle for the anti-freedom evangelicals

http://www.cnn.com/2011/TECH/gaming.gad ... ?hpt=hp_t2
(CNN) -- Maybe it helps for the nation's highest court to say it, too?

Video games are art, and they deserve the exact same First Amendment protections as books, comics, plays and all the rest, the U.S. Supreme Court said Monday in a ruling about the sale of violent video games in California.

California had tried to argue that video games are inherently different from these other mediums because they are "interactive." So if a kid has to pick up a controller and hit the B button -- over and over again until he starts to get thumb arthritis -- to kill a person in a video game, that's different from reading about a similar murder, the state said.

The high court didn't buy that argument, however.

Interactive stories are "nothing new," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote in the majority opinion (PDF). "Since at least the publication of 'The Adventures of You: Sugarcane Island' in 1969, young readers of choose-your-own-adventure stories have been able to make decisions that determine the plot by following instructions about which page to turn to."

Here's more on why the court thinks video games are art:

"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."

That's all well and good. But the most fun to be had in this potentially dry court opinion is when Scalia starts writing about how gory old-school stories are, too. He's trying to make the point that stories have included violence for as long as there have been stories.

The examples are pretty hilarious:

"Grimm's Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed," he writes.

Then there's this:

"Cinderella's evil stepsisters have their eyes pecked out by doves. And Hansel and Gretel (children!) kill their captor by baking her in an oven."

And, finally, if that wasn't enough eye-related violence for you:

"High-school reading lists are full of similar fare. Homer's Odysseus blinds Polyphemus the Cyclops by grinding out his eye with a heated stake."

Like these stories, this whole debate of whether video games -- violent or not -- classify as art has been raging in the tech world for years, if not decades.

It appears that much of the feud has been settled as of late, as CNN's Doug Gross wrote from the E3 Expo this month in Los Angeles.

"Keep debating whether video games are art if you wish. At E3, the world's biggest gaming expo, it's a closed question. Here, video games are definitely art -- and a gallery-style exhibit aims to prove it to as many people as care to look," Gross wrote at a gallery showing of video game art.

The Smithsonian is on board with this idea, too. That bastion of culture and history plans a similar exhibition, called "The Art of Video Games," in 2012.
and here's the reaction from the butthurt 'Parents Television Council'
LOS ANGELES (June 27, 2011) – Today, the Supreme Court upended a California law that would hold video game retailers accountable for selling or renting adult games to unaccompanied minor children. The Parents Television Council™ denounced today’s ruling in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, but pledged to continue holding irresponsible video game retailers publicly accountable.

“When an industry trade group files a federal lawsuit to defend a child’s constitutional rights, the alarm bells should be deafening. It is hard to imagine a more cynical proposition. Sadly, today’s ruling proves the United States Supreme Court heard the video game industry loud and clear, but turned a deaf ear to concerned parents. The Court has provided children with a Constitutionally-protected end-run on parental authority,” said PTC President Tim Winter.

“This ruling replaces the authority of parents with the economic interests of the video game industry. With no fear of any consequence for violating the video game industry’s own age restriction guidelines, retailers can now openly, brazenly sell games with unspeakable violence and adult content even to the youngest of children.

“The carefully-worded California statute would not have interfered in any way with the rights of the creators of adult games or the adults who wish to buy them; and in fact, it would not interfere with parents who wanted to purchase such a game for their children. Rather, the measure only would have prevented an unaccompanied minor child from buying or renting the product.

“Countless independent studies confirm what most parents instinctively know to be true: repeated exposure to violent video games has a harmful and long-term effect on children. Despite these troubling findings, video game manufacturers have fought tooth and nail for the ‘right’ to line their pockets at the expense of America’s children. Today, the Supreme Court sided with them and against parents.

“We call on the Entertainment Merchants Association to redouble its efforts for increased enforcement of the industry’s age-based vending restrictions. The Federal Trade Commission and the PTC’s own ‘Secret Shopper’ campaigns have routinely demonstrated an abysmal failure rate for video game retailers to uphold the industry’s own age-based restrictions. With the exception of GameStop, many in the video game industry appear to be either unwilling or unable to prevent the sale of M-rated games to kids. Now with no threat of consequence for failure, we are concerned that the self-regulatory efforts will be violated in even greater numbers than they already are. We will be monitoring this very closely.

“The Parents Television Council is proud of its unwavering support for California State Senator Leland Yee’s leadership and legislative efforts to protect children. We will continue to use all the resources within our power to call out unscrupulous retailers. If the federal courts won’t stand for parents, then we hope the court of public opinion will,” Winter concluded.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Audley Strange
"I blame the victim"
Posts: 7485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS: Video games are protected speech

Post by Audley Strange » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:18 am

Is targetting advertising towards children banned in the States? This is not a derail or tangential, I want to know before I make any further comment.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS: Video games are protected speech

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:20 am

Audley Strange wrote:Is targetting advertising towards children banned in the States? This is not a derail or tangential, I want to know before I make any further comment.
Cigarette advertising aimed at "the youth market" is banned. And the killers keep finding ways around it. "Age inappropriate" items, like booze, I'd not sure about.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS: Video games are protected speech

Post by JimC » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:23 am

I intensely dislike violent video games, and suspect thay can have a negative effect on young people who play them excessively, but I would not argue for their banning.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

User avatar
Audley Strange
"I blame the victim"
Posts: 7485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS: Video games are protected speech

Post by Audley Strange » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:23 am

What about McD's and toy companies? Can they still bombard them?
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS: Video games are protected speech

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:24 am

JimC wrote:I intensely dislike violent video games, and suspect thay can have a negative effect on young people who play them excessively, but I would not argue for their banning.
Banning them would make them instantly popular.
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Gawdzilla Sama
Stabsobermaschinist
Posts: 151265
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 12:24 am
About me: My posts are related to the thread in the same way Gliese 651b is related to your mother's underwear drawer.
Location: Sitting next to Ayaan in Domus Draconis, and communicating via PMs.
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS: Video games are protected speech

Post by Gawdzilla Sama » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:25 am

Audley Strange wrote:What about McD's and toy companies? Can they still bombard them?
Big Mac's are not instantly lethal, so yes.

Image
Image
Ein Ubootsoldat wrote:“Ich melde mich ab. Grüssen Sie bitte meine Kameraden.”

User avatar
Audley Strange
"I blame the victim"
Posts: 7485
Joined: Wed Jun 08, 2011 5:00 pm
Contact:

Re: SCOTUS: Video games are protected speech

Post by Audley Strange » Sat Sep 17, 2011 11:42 am

Okay. I checked it out anyway.

It seems to me that since games have age appropriate ratings that retailers should not be selling them to children, but the parents should also take more interest in their children's interests and not raise their paws in horror at the evil games industry. I just finally got through Dead Space 2 which I have to say was quite a harrowing ordeal and if it had been a movie people would quite rightly question the abilities of a parent who not only let their child see it but actually escorted their kids to see it.

However Dead Space 2 was marketed as "The Game your Mother doesn't want you to play" replete with action packed gory trailer.

This is a problem. Now no doubt some 12 year old Epeener who's diction is limited to "win fail fag and lame" might not find Dead Space 2 particularly harrowing however like advertising the nature of most gaming is repetitive, it sinks into the brain unbidden and it is this repitition that can have actual ramifications on the mental health of people of any age, for children I cannot see how there is a positive aspect to watching something eviscerate their game character in ever increasingly grotesque and bloody ways.

As such I think manufacturers retailers and parents have to make sure games that are age appropriate are NOT ending up in the hands of people who have not yet reached that age. There is a level of dismissiveness about games which I think does have to be addressed, but this is a social responsibility. Reasonable laws are already in place. They just have to be enforced properly.

If you knew a kid who's parents were quite happy to let him or her watch violent S&M porn would you just shrug? Parents have to take responsibility here too even if that means legal proceedings against them for neglect.
"What started as a legitimate effort by the townspeople of Salem to identify, capture and kill those who did Satan's bidding quickly deteriorated into a witch hunt" Army Man

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests