'Violent Video Game Ban' Law Struck Down by Supreme Court
59 replies, posted
[quote]The Supreme Court on Monday struck down a controversial California law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors.
The High Court found that "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."
The debate dates back to October 2005, when then-Governor Arnold Schwarzenegger signed California bill AB 1179 into law. It imposed a civil fine up to $1,000 on any person who distributed a violent video game in California without including a label that said it was for those 18 and over, or for selling or renting such games to minors.
The video game industry sued, and a federal district court ruled that the law violated the First Amendment. The battle continued, however, making its way to the Supreme Court. In the High Court's Monday ruling, Justices Scalia, Kennedy, Ginsburg, Sotomayor, and Kagan concurred. Justice Alito and Chief Justice Roberts concurred with the judgment but not the approach, while Justices Thomas and Breyer dissented.
In its majority opinion, the Court found that California wanted "to create a wholly new category of content-based regulation that is permissible only for speech directed at children. That is unprecedented and mistaken."
The court pointed to psychological studies that found the connection between violent video games and aggressive behavior to be "small and indistinguishable from effects produced by other media." In other words, why go after video games but not Saturday morning cartoons with similar content?
The law, therefore, raises "serious doubts about whether the State is pursuing the interest it invokes or is instead disfavoring a particular speaker or viewpoint."
The Court found that the video game industry's existing voluntary ratings system appears to be sufficient in helping parents restrict their children from consuming violent video game content.
In his dissenting opinion, Justice Thomas argued that the limited exceptions to free speech should include "speech to minor children bypassing their parents."
In a statement, the Entertainment Merchants Association (EMA), said it was "gratified" by the Court's decision. "There now can be no argument whether video games are entitled to the same protection as books, movies, music, and other expressive entertainment," the group said.
EMA touted the effectiveness of its ratings system, and pointed to a recent Federal Trade Commission report that found video game retailers to be the most vigilant when it comes to enforcing ratings.
The Motion Picture Association of America also championed the ruling. "The motion picture industry is no stranger to governments' incursion on freedom of expression. From the very inception of the movie industry, attempts to restrict speech have threatened the creativity of American movie-makers. We applaud the Supreme Court for recognizing the far-reaching First-Amendment implications posed by the California law," said former Sen. Chris Dodd, chairman and CEO of the MPAA.
California State Sen. Leland Yee, who sponsored the original bill, said today's ruling "put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children."
"As a result of their decision, Wal-Mart and the video game industry will continue to make billions of dollars at the expense of our kids' mental health and the safety of our community," Yee continued. "It is simply wrong that the video game industry can be allowed to put their profit margins over the rights of parents and the well-being of children."
Despite the loss, Yee said he is "certain that this eight-year legislative and legal battle has raised the consciousness of this issue for many parents and grandparents, and has forced the video game industry to do a better job at appropriately rating these games."
For PCMag Editor-in-Chief Lance Ulanoff's take on the issue, see Violent Video Games: Our Responsibility, Not the Courts.
[url]http://www.pcworld.com/article/231223/violent_video_game_ban_law_struck_down_by_supreme_court.html[/url][/quote]
Yep, video games are still not going down without a fight.
Steam just put this on the front page.
[QUOTE] sale of violent video games to minors[/QUOTE]
Isn't this what the PEGI ratings were for anyway?
[QUOTE=Arsonist;30743392]Isn't this what the PEGI ratings were for anyway?[/QUOTE]
You see I quit reading the back of video game covers and started reading the PEGI ratings.
"Sex, drugs, and violence? I'll take two."
If this passed, videogame industry would be ruined and all we'd see is more farmvilling.
PEGI + America? What are oyu smoking?
I've played violent games since I was 5 years old. I turned out just fine.
Very good ruling, even more so in that it will be used in later rulings. Many people don't realize this, but with the creation of any new medium comes a legion of people who want to ban it. Jazz, blues, rock, metal, certain types of video, ability to film, and the list can go on and on. The argument is always that the new mediums are different and therefore should be treated differently from the previous mediums.
[QUOTE=Kurtzund;30743593]I've played violent games since I was 5 years old. I turned out just fine.[/QUOTE]
Nobody argues that most people won't end up fine, more that a minority is affected badly and that we ought to have some preventive action because we don't know who will be affected. It's hard to find arguments based in preventative action to be at all effective especially in that there are always unexpected consequences. Actually, some people do argue that violent video games affect all minors, but such a claim is insane to make because all data contradicts it. So my previous statement is only talking about somewhat rational people.
They're pretending that kids under 18 can buy video games without their parents.
Most rated M games require that the parents purchase it.
Therefore, what a pointless fucking law.
Guy who doesn't play video games kills somebody - he's insane.
Guy who plays video games kills somebody - it's the video games.
Extra points if the game he played was audiosurf.
[QUOTE=sYnced;30743667]They're pretending that kids under 18 can buy video games without their parents.
Most rated M games require that the parents purchase it.
Therefore, what a pointless fucking law.[/QUOTE]
When I was 14 I could get any game in the store without my parents, be it 17+ or even 18+
I am 14 and play M rated games filled with gore all the time. In fact, I've been doing this since I was 10. I have not wanted to kill a real person at all so far.
[QUOTE=SEKCobra;30743525]PEGI, America? What are oyu smoking?[/QUOTE]
America does not use the pegi system, it's the esrb.
This is overrated, let people play their goddamn games. Even if their gibbing some random man on the street, it's just a few cases where people eventually go mad about it.
Still, it'd be nice to be able to buy a game without having to flash my ID like I'm buying cigarettes.
[QUOTE=green bandit;30744011]America does not use the pegi system, it's the esrb.[/QUOTE]
That's my point.
[QUOTE=Andokool12;30743698]Guy who doesn't play video games kills somebody - he's insane.
Guy who plays video games kills somebody - it's the video games.[/QUOTE]
It stems from the confirmation bias and the pattern recognition. It's an understandable fault because it is instinctively built in. People will come to some conclusion, and look for patterns or evidence that supports it, and forget anything that goes against their observations. The media also have a big part to play in this because it is a hot button topic and they try to incorporate it into many stories to get ratings.
This is what happened with blues and jazz. Blacks were the primary people who played this music, and they reportedly committed the most crime. Due to this association many people made the claim that blues and jazz was the devil's music and would make you violent and commit crimes. The logic usually follows as
X group does Y
X group statistically commits more crime
X group commits more crime because of Y
The issue with the claim is there isn't anything besides association that link Y to crime, and the even bigger problem is that it does not contrast against an X group that does not do Y.
My point is that although people who crusade against jazz, blues, movies, and video games are wrong, it is essential to understand that they are just eliciting a common and natural fault in human reasoning.
Activision doesn't want their games to be ID tagged, otherwise 75% of their community is gone!
They ain't called the supreme court for nothing. Good show, gents.
They've been allowing violent movies for decades, why should video games be treated any differently?
video games is a HUGE industry this would effect it big time
I love violent videogames, I'd be pissed if they tried to ban them from adults altogether. It's just entertainment, not to be taken seriously.
I don't give a shit if they (try to) ban violent video games from minors though.
What is the big deal against this law and why did people think it was "against the first amendment"? It bans sale of violent video games to children under the age on ESRB thing anyway, and that's how it always has been.
[QUOTE=carcarcargo;30744315]They've been allowing violent movies for decades, why should video games be treated any differently?[/QUOTE]
During the arrival of violent movies there was an attempt to ban them, using similar logic that this new medium is different from the older mediums (text; pictures). This kind of movement always happens with the popularization of new mediums.
Wait till holo-movies/games/whatever appear. Shit will so be requested to get banned
Anything VR will lead to fucked up VR so yeah.
it probably from the soccer moms that they want every one to get outside or make us play "my little pony"
[QUOTE=mastfire;30751400]or make us play "my little pony"[/QUOTE]
Some people here do that by choice
well? Your Move now, Mr. Thompson.
When people bring statistics against violent video games, most of them are false evidence. They compare totally unrelated things, such as murders committed and sales of video games over X amount of years. Just because two things can correlate doesn't mean that one of those caused the other.
Here's an example. Let's say that we want to find out if oranges cause schizophrenia, so we make a graph. We would compare number of oranges sold on average per year and the average number of patients diagnosed with schizophrenia per year. So, for example if the avg. number of oranges sold rises while the number of diagnoses rises, then you can say that there is a correlation between the two. Does that mean that oranges cause schizophrenia? No.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.