Achievement Unlocked: Have The Supreme Court Rule in Your Favor

[dv8nation.livejournal.com]

http://www.comicbookresources.com/?page=article&id=33003

The US Supreme Court has ruled against a law that would prevent M-rated games from being sold to minors. This all arose from a bill signed by Arnold Schwarzenegger shortly before he left office. Ironic, since Arnold's career has inspired more than one violent game. 

Anyway, Justice Scalia had this to say "The most basic principle – that government lacks the power to restrict expression because of its message, ideas, subject matter, or content – is subject to a few limited exceptions for historically unprotected speech, such as obscenity, incitement, and fighting words. But a legislature cannot create new categories of unprotected speech simply by weighing the value of a particular category against its social costs and then punishing it if it fails the test."


In this day in age people have been looking at video games more and more as a scapegoat for social problems. This ruling won't change that. But it does give important legal juice to the game industry who've made some real bonehead moves for fear of the feds coming down on them. Plus, in a time when it seems like free speech is under fire all over America it's good to see it truly being protected. And it's great that the people got a reminder that just because you don't like something doesn't mean you can run off to court and get it banned.

Also, it's good to see the SC doing SOMETHING to catch up with the 21st century. Media is changed at a rapid pace these days and it's vital that the law keep up to prevent free speech from being abused or barred.

As a game lover this makes me pretty damn happy. If for no other reason than that it will piss off Jack Thompson.

Comments

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

I can't think of the last time the Supreme Court handed down a series of rulings that made me happy across the board. This has been a solid last few weeks.

[medea34.livejournal.com]

Hurray for sanity!!!!!

As a long time lover of violent video games, movies, books and television this warms my heart. Violent games don't make people violent. Correlation does not equal causation. despite having graphically killed and been killed a bazillion times online, I am not homicidal in real life (much like not going on a killing spree after reading American psycho). Yay for freedom of speech!

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

Like you I have been playing violent games for years, watching violent movies for years, and once got in trouble for reading Stephen King's "The Stand," in the sixth grade. I have yet to murder someone in cold blood. After watching A Clockwork Orange, I didn't roam the country side beating drunkards and raping women.

I feel that minors should not have access to violent video games, movies, books, or music. But even Super Mario was violent, in its 8 bit way. Children should not be allowed to buy these games, or rent them, but the fact is where are the parents? Even now, at my older age, my mother is bothered by games like Call of Duty: Black Ops, and I do not blame her, even if I enjoy playing it, and own a copy. Would I allow my children to play these games, absolutely not. But I also realize that some parents will, and at some point my children, when I get around to having any, will come in contact with these games, and all I can do is hope they realize the difference between real life and a game/movie/book.

[paedraggaidin.livejournal.com]

Now this is a decision I can wholeheartedly support!

[zeitgeistic.livejournal.com]

Agreed.

[eracerhead.livejournal.com]

Will someone think of the parents!!!!

[3fgburner.livejournal.com]

I am. With loud laughter, ridicule, and mockery };-D>.

[zeitgeistic.livejournal.com]

I will think of them having to raise their children themselves instead of having the government do it for them. :P

Good point.

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Now parents will have to keep a closer eye on their wards. What a severe burden!

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Now they just need to rule on Net Neutrality and we'll be in the 21st century.

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

What constitutional interest guarantees net neutrality? Or are you referring to the FCC's move to impose net neutrality?

[raichu100.livejournal.com]

this makes me very happy too! :D

[soliloquy76.livejournal.com]

Something else to note: It looks like video games are one of the reasons that violent crime is going down.

http://www.gamepolitics.com/2011/06/21/report-video-games-help-reduce-violent-crime-rates

Certainly plausible, and contradicts the supporters of this recently struck-down law.

[terminator44.livejournal.com]

It's good that this stupid law was finally struck down. Not surprising, though, as every similar law has been struck down everywhere else it has been passed (Illinois, for example).

Think of all the money...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

You are missing out on an extraordinary business opportunity with this ruling. With a ban on sales to minors, that opens up a black market in peddling games to minors. You would be better off as a black marketeer.

Some people believe that violent games leads to violent actions on the part of the players. I don't know if there is any research to back this up. Having played violent games as a child and having watched violent cartoons, I do not see a connection. What is the greater concern is getting sucked into a gaming addiction. That is something with which I have had personal experience. It is not fun, but it is something that can be overcome.

Re: Think of all the money...

[sophia-sadek.livejournal.com]

Pardon my Rednecki grammar.

[reflaxion.livejournal.com]

I hear Joe Lieberman's soul caught fire when the verdict was announced.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Liebermann has a soul? [citation needed]

[malakh-abaddon.livejournal.com]

I heard Tipper Gore exploded, while John Denver laughed in heaven.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

I never thought I'd say this, but Scalia talks sense. O.o

[anfalicious.livejournal.com]

Wow. I'm surprised at all the agreement with this ruling.

In Australia we've been fighting for years to get an R18+ video game rating (film and print has it, but games don't). This would allow for violent games to be sold only to people who are over 18. What we get at the moment is that if a game is too violent to get an M15 rating then it gets refused classification and can't be sold here.

I think it's a good idea to restrict the sale of violent games to minors. Why? Because then when parents go OH MY GOD WHY IS LITTLE TOMMY KILLING PEOPLE ON A SCREEN??? then they can either only blame themselves or someone who broke the law in giving little Tommy a violent game. In other words they cannot blame the video game. Rating content and restricting adult content to adults speaks to all these luddites out there who think video games are for children. There is a mass of public out there who don't understand that something like Grand Theft Auto is not designed to be played by children.

I don't see minimum age for driving, drinking, voting and sex being claimed as first amendment violations; they're adult activities, restricted to adults. As too, should be playing Grand Theft Auto.

This law essentially says that violent games are designed for children, in which case I can see why people would be very supportive of an outright ban on them.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

As a game lover this makes me pretty damn happy

So now little Johnny can play Duke Nukem Forever with this little gem?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m7gkn6WQ44M

[a-new-machine.livejournal.com]

DNF is dumb. Everyone knew this going into it, though. It's hardly the most graphic game out there, either. How about a game about serial child murder (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heavy_Rain), or one that rewards you for killing enemies in new and inventive ways (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bulletstorm)?

[dwer.livejournal.com]

everyone's missing the real story. Clarence Thomas (you may know him from such shows as "I'm a Corrupt Judge" or "I Take Money from People who Appear Before My Court") did NOT SIDE with Scalia.

That almost NEVER happens.