Supreme Court case on banning violent video games

[Arachne 25]

http://www.boston.co...nt_video_games/

You know, when I first heard this was happening, I couldn't believe it. A ruling like this would violate basic rights to freedom of speech for minors everywhere, and could potentially cripple the gaming industry. In prior court cases like this, video games have won because regulating their content was deemed unconstitutional.

Why do people think that video games don't deserve the free speech protection given to films and books? I know that other media have to fight for their right to free speech, but not the extent that video games do. Is it because they're a new form of medium, is it due to their interactive nature, or is it because they somehow don't count as a valid form of artistic expression?

There's already a ratings system for games, similar to that for movies. Isn't that enough? The only reason kids are playing M-rated games in the first place is because their parents are dumb enough to get the games for them. Well, parents of North America, congratulations: you've proven that since you're not responsible enough to regulate what your kids play, the government's gonna do it for you.

When I heard about the earlier court cases I wasn't too worried. Surely the first amendment will win in the end. But lately there's been a growing trend of infantilizing anyone under the age of 19 and making it seem like they can't be trusted to make the right decision. To me it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You treat someone like a child, they just might start acting like one. But that's another subject entirely.

The point is, I wasn't concerned then because I didn't think this was something that would affect more than a state or two at the most, and even then only temporarily. Now that it's reached the supreme court suddenly the idea that games like Bioshock and Fallout will be relegated to the back room with the pornography is plausible. Hell, even Zelda games might be back there with them if the people in charge decide they're too violent.

Anyway, this is rapidly turning into a rant, and I want to make this more of a discussion. So, your turn.

EDIT: Struck through a point I didn't touch on, which was confusing to people.

[Aethix 129]

I don't think there's anything to worry about. Not even the Supreme Court is nutty enough to support such a stupid law.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

Those crazy video games! The ones that caused any kind of injury ever!

I mean look at all the actual people they've killed or harmed!

OK, well, maybe in the middle of theft or over disagreements, but that literally happens with pretty much every material object.

[PokeFan 0]

I heard this from a friend a while ago. I really don't think it'll pass, but that's just my opinion from having only read that article and from the info my friend gave me. I don't really see the point in 'banning' violent videogames. And even if they did, it probably wouldn't change anything. Everyone I know who gets M rated games gets their parents to get it for them already anyway, so I don't see the point in putting a fine on selling violent games to minors. But seeing how I'm in lovely old UT, that situation could be completely different in other places.

[Arachne 25]

To tell you the truth, in the end it's not likely to pass. I'm just disappointed that the public at large still see games as just toys instead of seeing their potential for great art. Video games, IMO, are at a crucial point right now, kind of like when comic books began to be taken more seriously (mostly because of graphic novels). The problem is, games take a lot of money to make, and most major developers don't want to sink millions of dollars into a controversial game. Look at what happened to "Six Days In Fallujah". It's not my kind of game, but I think it should have been made. If movies, books and graphic novels can explore difficult subjects, there's no reason those same subjects can't be explored in a video game.

[Oliver 0]

http://www.boston.com/news/nation/washington/articles/2010/04/27/supreme_court_to_rule_on_violent_video_games/

You know, when I first heard this was happening, I couldn't believe it. A ruling like this would violate basic rights to freedom of speech for minors everywhere, and could potentially cripple the gaming industry. In prior court cases like this, video games have won because regulating their content was deemed unconstitutional.

Why do people think that video games don't deserve the free speech protection given to films and books? I know that other media have to fight for their right to free speech, but not the extent that video games do. Is it because they're a new form of medium, is it due to their interactive nature, or is it because they somehow don't count as a valid form of artistic expression?

There's already a ratings system for games, similar to that for movies. Isn't that enough? The only reason kids are playing M-rated games in the first place is because their parents are dumb enough to get the games for them. Well, parents of North America, congratulations: you've proven that since you're not responsible enough to regulate what your kids play, the government's gonna do it for you.

When I heard about the earlier court cases I wasn't too worried. Surely the first amendment will win in the end. But lately there's been a growing trend of infantilizing anyone under the age of 19 and making it seem like they can't be trusted to make the right decision. To me it's a self-fulfilling prophecy. You treat someone like a child, they just might start acting like one. But that's another subject entirely.

The point is, I wasn't concerned then because I didn't think this was something that would affect more than a state or two at the most, and even then only temporarily. Now that it's reached the supreme court suddenly the idea that games like Bioshock and Fallout will be relegated to the back room with the pornography is plausible. Hell, even Zelda games might be back there with them if the people in charge decide they're too violent.

Anyway, this is rapidly turning into a rant, and I want to make this more of a discussion. So, your turn.

You talk about your right, as a minor, for free speech or expression but how is playing a video game an expression of yourself? That's puppying stupid. Vidya gaems are entertainment, nothing more. If you're going to talk about the violation of the right to express yourself freely then say it's a violation of the companies right to produce their own content under their own jurdistiction,

'Artistic expression'? That's a sketchy territory, I thought artistic expression was paintings and physical objects not billions of digits in binary on a physical disk or flash memory. If you want to create a game engine which renders a whole world of your imagination then that's cool but don't try and pin games which are sold for the purposes of entertainment and money as 'Artistic expression'

There is a rating system for games but the moms which were born last generation are puppying ignorant and they ignore it, instead they're SHOCKED AND HORRIFIED that the 18+ only/Adults Only(contains drugs violence, sex etc) game they bought for their 8 year old dipshit contains drugs, violence, sex, sexuality, swearing, fear and so forth, thus complaining to the game companies (which bend over backwards because of some PR bullshit, I'd like a company more if they told the moms "puppy you, stop buying our Adults only games for your children, play it yourself and don't let timmy experience it.")

I agree, it's ridiculous but guess what? They start saying "hurp durp, you cannot sell violent(as defined by our team of lawyers) vidya gaems" the companies stop selling physical copies and heavily invest in direct digital downloads, which currently, resides on the internet and no one can touch the internet because that's a completely different realm.

Not that this discussion will directly affect the outcome of the grand scheme of things, utimately the people in power are the ones out of touch with the current affairs of society as a whole.

[real link 0]

That's puppying stupid. Vidya gaems are entertainment, nothing more.

so are books and movies, but people can't ban those.

[Sahaqiel 1232]

Vidya gaems are entertainment, nothing more.

'Artistic expression'? That's a sketchy territory, I thought artistic expression was paintings and physical objects not billions of digits in binary on a physical disk or flash memory. If you want to create a game engine which renders a whole world of your imagination then that's cool but don't try and pin games which are sold for the purposes of entertainment and money as 'Artistic expression'

Not that this discussion will directly affect the outcome of the grand scheme of things, utimately the people in power are the ones out of touch with the current affairs of society as a whole.

1) It's only entertainment because not many people take financial risks like making an artistic game. You're being as shallow minded as all those last-generation mothers who don't know what they're talking about. There are plenty of movies that are also art, but mind numbing action tends to get the money.

2) Artistic expression is found in anything someone puts their all into something that conveys themselves and their emotions. You can't restrict it to paintings and objects. That's stupid.

Also, video games ARE physical objects. You just said so yourself.

3) This is a discussion forum. Everyone in it knows that our discussions can only affect the minds of a few individuals, and most people here are on the same page anyway. We discuss to discuss. Stop explaining the joke. It makes you no more cool or revolutionary as the guy with an opposing opinion.

[T1g 1503]

Dude i like wrote 12 pages on this crap and i am pretty much tired of the subject

[Arachne 25]

Thanks for calling me on my BS, Oliver. I was talking more about freedom of expression for the developers more, but my wording wasn't the best. freedom of expression for minors was another issue I was thinking about at the time, but it's unrelated to what I was talking about. I'll keep it in there, just strike through it to avoid confusion.

I disagree with your definition of 'art', though. It's a really subjective term, and what counts as art is different to everyone. I doubt anyone will ever really agree on what constitutes as 'art'. I mean, according to you, anything made using digital means is automatically disqualified from having any artistic merit.

I thought artistic expression was paintings and physical objects not billions of digits in binary on a physical disk or flash memory

Following that logic, no digitally rendered music or pictures could count as art. That makes as much sense as saying that the only valid art form has to be drawn using a No. 2 pencil. The materials don't make the art, but rather what the artist does with them.

If you want to create a game engine which renders a whole world of your imagination then that's cool but don't try and pin games which are sold for the purposes of entertainment and money as 'Artistic expression'

So anything make for the purpose of entertainment and money can't be art? Well, that rules out movies, music, books, comics, graphic novels, commissioned paintings... what does that leave us with? Non-entertaining things made of physical materials that were never sold for profit?

Anyways, like I said it is a pretty subjective term, but what makes it important here is that the case will go differently if video games are seen to have some artistic merit. If not, violence and sexuality in video games will likely be ruled obscene. I think right now the Court uses the Miller test. *paste from Wikipedia*

Under the Miller test, a work is obscene if:

(a)...‘the average person, applying contemporary community standards’ would find the work, as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,...(

http://www.hyrule.net/forum/uploads/emoticons/default_cool.png' alt='B)'>...the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law, and ©...the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

[48]

It's all pretty damned subjective, so it's tough to say what will be found offensive and lacking in intrinsic value. Same thing happens to books and movies all the time. Ratings systems aren't just a way for parents to gauge whether something's appropriate for their kids.

to be continued

[Max 10]

Minors have no rights. You aren't a real person until you're 18.

[Ammonsa 308]

so are books and movies, but people can't ban those.

Ah, yes they can. Books and Movies are banned over here in Australia. As well as the fact that our video game ratings only go up to 15+. Even more disturbing, the government has a blacklist of websites that they intend on banning for all australians. But I digress.

[Arachne 25]

Very true. There are all kinds of books that get challenged and banned all the time. Every year my Mom is involved in a Freedom To Read week at the library to bring awareness to books and magazines that are challenged or banned from libraries across Canada. Here's a link to the list of books that have been challenged in the past decades:

http://www.freedomto...d_magazines.pdf

Same thing happens to movies and TV shows all the time. One point I wanted to put into my last post was how the ratings systems also serve to regulate what goes into the mainstream. If they can't outright ban a movie from being sold, they can give it an NC-17 rating to keep it off mainstream shelves. Typically the MPAA treats homosexuality in films more harshly than heterosexuality, which is Why Boys Don't Cry originally got an NC-17, so they had to tone down the rape scene (which is still disturbing). I think the MPAA also wanted the sex scene taken out even though it showed very little nudity.

I'm sure the ESRB works similarly for video games. It's notable that so far nly 23 games have received and kept the AO rating. Games like Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas and Leisure Suit Larry: Magna Cum Laude had to make changes to reduce their rating to M. If they hadn't, most retail and rental stores wouldn't carry them and they'd lose a ton of revenue. So it's not like games aren't already being censored.

[purplelink 0]

we all need an outlet for stress we play videogames

[Skippy 82]

^ poor legal argument.

The first amendment, however, is not. The rating system is in place, stores need to make sure it is enforced, and parents need to actually parent. No need for further government intrusion into our lives.