US Supreme Court hears arguments on whether violent video games should be government-regulated

Supreme Court hears arguments on whether violent video games should be government-regulated

Jesse J. Holland
Associated Press
November 2, 2010

WASHINGTON - Retailers who sell the latest "Halo" or "Call of Duty" video game to children would face substantial fines under a law being considered by the Supreme Court.

The justices will hear arguments Tuesday on whether to reinstate a California ban that would make it illegal for retailers to sell or rent violent video games to anyone under the age of 18. Parents could buy the games and give them to their children, but retailers who sold them to minors could face fines up to $1,000.

Supporters of the law say violent games are harmful to children.But video-game companies say it's a First Amendment issue. And the lower courts have said California lacked enough evidence to prove violent games cause psychological harm to minors.

We really have become the 'Nanny' state. Now parents can push off responsibility for what their children buy on to someone else. Do you realize what our generation's parents would've done to us if we had purchased and played something that they deemed bad or inappropriate? They would have been a parent and solved the problem themselves... and you would remember it for the rest of your life. You would also have learned a lesson and passed it on to your children and not wait for someone else to enforce your rules.

Oh yeah, I know. People will say that kids can't go to R-rated movies. There no law that says they can't. The movie rating system is voluntary. The theaters (not gov't) simply prohibit kids from attending R-rated (or NC-17 rated) films. What's more, there's a parallel, voluntary rating system (ESRB) in place for video games already. The retailers (not gov't) simply prohibit kids from buying M-rated (or A-O rated) games. This lawsuit is different in that the gov't is criminalizing something based on content. It'll be thrown out as it has been at every lower court along the way.

What's the difference? Do you really need to see somebody's head get blown off in great detail? There will always be parents who don't watch what their children see, and that's harm done, whereas censoring video games doesn't do any harm to anybody.

BubbleBliss wrote:
What's the difference? Do you really need to see somebody's head get blown off in great detail? There will always be parents who don't watch what their children see, and that's harm done, whereas censoring video games doesn't do any harm to anybody.

Yeesh. If I was a parent, I would make sure that my kids don't bring home a video game that's too graphic.

As for blowing heads off, I do that daily with Left 4 Dead. I like seeing arms or legs flying off. It's realism.

Nanny state.

Unnecessary realism. Just because you would do it to your kids doesn't mean everybody else would do the same thing. And let's face it, how many parents really know what their kids are playing on the computer?

Actually Tex I am all for a rating system on games. You have them on films, so why not games?

BubbleBliss wrote:Unnecessary realism. Just because you would do it to your kids doesn't mean everybody else would do the same thing. And let's face it, how many parents really know what their kids are playing on the computer?

True. But this is bad parenting.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Actually Tex I am all for a rating system on games. You have them on films, so why not games?

I don't know about over there but here it's, as I stated in the response to my OP, a voluntary system we have on films. This issue being brought to the courts is entirely another issue.

TexasBlue wrote:

BubbleBliss wrote:Unnecessary realism. Just because you would do it to your kids doesn't mean everybody else would do the same thing. And let's face it, how many parents really know what their kids are playing on the computer?

True. But this is bad parenting.

Absolutely, but it happens nonetheless.

I have to say that when it comes to laws like this, I default to freedom. This law would give government yet another power it does not need, the power parents should be exercising as they see fit, and it would criminalize an activity that is not currently criminal. As Tex noted, there is already a voluntary rating system and prohibition on children buying overly graphic and violent video games. When my children were still young and living with me, I did not allow them to watch certain TV programs that I deemed inappropriate, including the Simpson's and Married With Children (didn't have the video game problem parents today now face).

And the argument that bad parents will ignore what their kids are doing so we need the law is faulty as well. Bad parents who aren't paying attention could easily be persuaded by their kids to buy the games for them side-stepping the law.

This law is unnecessary. And the LAST thing we need is yet another unnecessary law on the books.

What I was trying to say.

TexasBlue wrote:What I was trying to say.

Actually, it's what you did say.

dblboggie wrote:

TexasBlue wrote:What I was trying to say.

Actually, it's what you did say.

Not as eloquently as you, of course.

There is a world of difference between regulation and censorship. Parents don't always know that a game or film is violent and inappropriate for younger audiences. Over here the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) sets age ratings for such things but as I understand it, games are regulated voluntarily with an advisory age so shops could be prosecuted for selling 'Hostel' to an 11 year old child, but not prosecuted for selling 'Manhunt' to the same child.

It's not the feds job to rate games. Now, if a state or states wanted to pass laws that have ratings, then it's perfectly legit.

This will get struck down by the USSC anyway.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:There is a world of difference between regulation and censorship. Parents don't always know that a game or film is violent and inappropriate for younger audiences. Over here the BBFC (British Board of Film Classification) sets age ratings for such things but as I understand it, games are regulated voluntarily with an advisory age so shops could be prosecuted for selling 'Hostel' to an 11 year old child, but not prosecuted for selling 'Manhunt' to the same child.

On the underlined bit, that is the very definition of being a parent... being in the know on those things. There will always be bad (irresponsible) parents but this is no excuse to grant to government powers that rightly belong to parents.

Over here, we have Mary Whitehouse to thank for our ridiculous censorship laws in the 1970s, but in the last few years our laws on have relaxed since that old homophobic religious nut died.

but this is no excuse to grant to government powers that rightly belong to parents.

If parents disagree with such ratings they can always buy games and films for their children. The difference is whether it is responsible for shops to be selling goods to children that are inappropriate for their age. And you can't watch your children every second of every day. I want to think that there are laws in place to stop shops selling inappopriate material to my children (when I have them). Social responsibility should, what is so wrong with it?

I'm posting this because of the excerpts that are here by the justices............


Does First Amendment Require Selling Violent Video Games to Children?

Ken Klukowski
Nov. 3, 2010

Many newer video games depict graphic violence, such as torturing and defiling women and children. These games are sold to kids. The Supreme Court is considering whether the First Amendment forbids states from restricting the sale of these games to minors.

With modern technology, newer video games can look very realistic. Some of these games are graphic in the extreme, in which the player can maim, kill, dismember, torture, or—believe it or not—sexually assault someone.

In response to parents’ outrage over some of these shocking video games, California passed a law banning the sale of such videos to children ages 17 and younger. The game manufacturers filed suit, raising the serious issue of whether the First Amendment protects the sale of such video games against state attempts to censor them.

On November 2, the Supreme Court heard arguments in this case, Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants Association.

This case should present an interesting split. Conservative Justice Antonin Scalia seemed to side with the video makers. His basic question was, what part of the government shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech don’t you understand? It seemed that Justice Elena Kagan might be with Scalia on that point, as might Justice Sonia Sotomayor.

Scalia’s argument was that the First Amendment includes no such limiting language to free speech, and that California was asking the Court to create a new type of unprotected speech. There are already three such unprotected subject-matters (obscenity, fighting words, and child pornography) and Scalia contends this would make a fourth.

In obvious disagreement, conservative Justice Sam Alito quipped to the amusement of the courtroom, “Well, I think what Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games. Did he enjoy them?”

The video makers’ lawyer aggressively argued that blocking access to these videos was unconstitutional censorship. Violence is regularly portrayed in the movies, and this lawyer argued that America traditionally protects content that many disagree with.

Chief Justice John Roberts responded by making it clear exactly what kinds of games were covered by this state law by reading from the official description in court records. “We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they’ll beg for mercy, being merciless and decapitating them, shooting them in the leg so they fall down…. Pour gasoline on them, set them on fire and urinate on them.”

The chief summed it up by saying, “We protect children from that. We don’t actively expose them to that.”

Another factor, which was mentioned during arguments but didn’t receive nearly the attention it deserved, is how video games are different from books, music and movies. In those, the child is a passive recipient. In video games, the child is the actor, taking part in what’s happening, imagining himself being a part of it.

Should the Court find that these video games are nonetheless protected speech, this law would still be upheld if it satisfies “strict scrutiny,” a demanding legal standard under which the law must be shown to be narrowly tailored to achieve a compelling public interest.

Justice Stephen Breyer sided with Roberts and Alito, all of whom were asking if there’s nothing a state can do to limit a child’s access to such video games. They emphasized that it’s not a question of whether the games are to be banned; it’s just that the parent has to buy the video and give it to the child. For example, Roberts asked, could the law at least require that the games be put on the shelf behind the checkout counter, so that the sales clerk has to get it and can check the age of the purchaser?

The video makers’ lawyer argued that any restriction would be unconstitutional because it censors free speech. And some of the justices agreed, wondering how the government could define an unacceptable game. How much of role can government play in determining access to things that some people find disturbing, but others find entertaining? (This side of the argument was helped by the fact that California’s lawyer was not adequately prepared, being asked a number of foreseeable questions for which he lacked answers.)

It’s unclear from oral argument which way the votes will stack up in this case. A decision should come down early next year.

Holy CRAP!!!!! What kind of sick fuck makes video games like that?!?!

Man, I am definitely out of touch with the gaming world. I had no idea these games were that sick.

The_Amber_Spyglass wrote:Over here, we have Mary Whitehouse to thank for our ridiculous censorship laws in the 1970s, but in the last few years our laws on have relaxed since that old homophobic religious nut died.

but this is no excuse to grant to government powers that rightly belong to parents.

If parents disagree with such ratings they can always buy games and films for their children. The difference is whether it is responsible for shops to be selling goods to children that are inappropriate for their age. And you can't watch your children every second of every day. I want to think that there are laws in place to stop shops selling inappopriate material to my children (when I have them). Social responsibility should, what is so wrong with it?

I understand what you are saying, but again, there is a rating system, and it doesn't require that a parent watch their children every second. Snoop around, check the kids room and computer and gaming system. Know who your children's friends are, and their parents; let them know about your prohibition on your child engaging in such games when guests in their home, and if they violate that trust, don't let your kid go to that friend's house. Be an active and engaged parent and you don't need a law to do what you won't do. After all, even the law can be circumvented - witness alcohol at parties thrown by high school children and children smoking, doing drugs and what not - we have laws against all those things, but they do not stop these things from occurring - but better parenting could.

Again, there is nothing wrong with social responsibility, but that should start in the home. Creating yet another law to control the behaviors of others is not going to fix this problem in the slightest - it is just giving government more power that it does not need.

dblboggie wrote:Holy CRAP!!!!! What kind of sick fuck makes video games like that?!?!

Man, I am definitely out of touch with the gaming world. I had no idea these games were that sick.

If you're referring to this statement by Roberts...

“We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they’ll beg for mercy, being merciless and decapitating them, shooting them in the leg so they fall down…. Pour gasoline on them, set them on fire and urinate on them.”

...I'm assuming that he's making a general comment. There is no video game that I'm aware of that depicts this. If there is, I'd like to see documentation.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Holy CRAP!!!!! What kind of sick fuck makes video games like that?!?!

Man, I am definitely out of touch with the gaming world. I had no idea these games were that sick.

If you're referring to this statement by Roberts...

“We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they’ll beg for mercy, being merciless and decapitating them, shooting them in the leg so they fall down…. Pour gasoline on them, set them on fire and urinate on them.”

...I'm assuming that he's making a general comment. There is no video game that I'm aware of that depicts this. If there is, I'd like to see documentation.

Yes... that's the statement. I mean, how sick can someone get? I should sincerely hope there is no such game as this, but surely he got this from somewhere.

dblboggie wrote:Yes... that's the statement. I mean, how sick can someone get? I should sincerely hope there is no such game as this, but surely he got this from somewhere.

No game that I'm aware of as I've said. Maybe our other gamers can shed light on that statement.

TexasBlue wrote:

dblboggie wrote:Yes... that's the statement. I mean, how sick can someone get? I should sincerely hope there is no such game as this, but surely he got this from somewhere.

No game that I'm aware of as I've said. Maybe our other gamers can shed light on that statement.

Yes, perhaps they can... I sure as hell know I can't shed any light on it...

dblboggie wrote:Again, there is nothing wrong with social responsibility, but that should start in the home. Creating yet another law to control the behaviors of others is not going to fix this problem in the slightest - it is just giving government more power that it does not need.

I guess the only real thing we disagree on is whether this should be a law. I feel happier knowing it is there as a safety net.

But I fail to understand how this gives governments power when all it is saying is "don't sell inappropriate things to children"?