Video Games Defeat California in Supreme Court Battle Over Violent Video Games

[Freddie Stubbs]

Source: Kotaku.com

The Supreme Court sided with the video game industry today, declaring a victor in the six-year legal match between the industry and the California lawmakers who wanted to make it a crime for anyone in the state to sell extremely violent games to kids.

In a 7-2 ruling Justice Anton Scalia said the law does not comport with the First Amendment. He was joined by Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, who had seemed sympathetic to California's concerns last year. Justices Clarence Thomas and Stephen Breyer, traditionally members of the court's right and left wings, respectively, joined in dissent.

The case was The State of California vs. The Entertainment Merchants Association and the Entertainment Software Association. That last party, the ESA, is the gaming industry. The trade group puts on the annual E3 video game showcase, the gaming business' biggest news event each year. The ESA's lawyers argued against the state of California's on Election Day last year, trying to convince the court that video games deserve the same breadth of First Amendment protections as books and movies. The decision, revealed today, was the first time the Supreme Court has weighed in on video games in any fashion.

The debate about video games' effect on kids has raged since the 80s and intensified in the 90s with the creation of Doom and a spate of school shootings. After the turn of the century, states across America, including Illinois and Michigan, attempted to criminalize the sale of violent video games to minors. But each of these laws, usually promoted by Democrats, was found by the lower courts to violate the First Amendment, running afoul of the country's Constitutional protection for free speech.
California's attempt to criminalize violent games got further than others. The law was written by California assemblyman and child psychologist Leland Yee and signed into law by then-governor Arnold Schwarzenegger.

Read more: http://kotaku.com/5795472/video-games-defeat-california-in-supreme-court-battle-over-violent-video-games

[trumad]

1. Doom?

snarf

[bemildred]

6. Max Payne. Duke Nukem. Wolfenstein 3D.

The old ways are best.

[trumad]

15. The new Duke Nukem kind of sucks...

downloaded the demo the other day--- clunky in mho

[bemildred]

25. Yeah, like movies, all the effort goes into the CGI these days.

Not that good CGI offends me, but it's takes more than pretty pictures to make a game that you spend hundreds of hours exploring.

[Posteritatis]

42. Yeah, there really wasn't much of that effort in DNF either

It'd be a perfectly lovely game if it was released ten years ago, though!

[LetTimmySmoke]

31. I was in high school when Columbine happened.

People got hysterical over Doom, because the killers played it. Video games, heavy metal, grunge, and much of the counterculture of the 90s got hit with the moral-panic baton pretty hard.

[NYC Liberal]

2. Good. n/t

[cui bono]

33. I don't think I agree. It's my understanding that this says they are allowed to sell

Mature rated games to minors. Why? Minors can't buy liquor or pornography.


WASHINGTON (AP) — The Supreme Court on Monday refused to let California clamp down on the sale or rental of violent video games to children, saying governments lack authority to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed" despite complaints that the popular and fast-changing technology allows the young to simulate acts of brutality.

I agree with Breyer:

Breyer said the court's decision creates an insurmountable conflict in the First Amendment, especially considering that justices have upheld bans on the sale of pornography to children.

"What sense does it make to forbid selling to a 13-year-old boy a magazine with an image of a nude woman, while protecting the sale to that 13-year-old of an interactive video game in which he actively, but virtually, binds and gags the woman, then tortures and kills her?" Breyer said. "What kind of First Amendment would permit the government to protect children by restricting sales of that extremely violent video game only when the woman — bound, gagged, tortured and killed — is also topless."

Just like R-Rated movies, parents can allow their kids to play the games if they buy them for them. This simply does not allow kids to go buy/rent them themselves. Just like other laws.

I play a few video games myself and one of the last ones was pretty sexist but NOTHING like what I saw described in another thread about the new Duke Nukem game. That shit is disgusting and kids have no business playing them. Adults know better but I've been online playing with 8-10 year olds and I'm shocked they are allowed to play them. Of course who knows what their parents are like.


EDIT TO ADD: I don't intentionally play with 8-10 year olds, that sounded a bit wrong. You join team games and don't know who you will be playing with but can tell by the sound of their voices how young they are.

[femrap]

60. And the

War on Women continues....after all we're just here to f*ck, rape, do laundry, reproduce, etc....and nothing like training the young boyz early on.

Our culture is so sick. Hope your daughters survive the onslaught.

I'm glad I'm old. I can't imagine trying to raise kids today.

And if I hear one more 'progressive' dude say, 'What are you...a fundamentalist prude?'

:rant:

Resume regular broadcasting. This on top on the denial of women to form a Class Action against Walmart pretty much sums up how this country treats women.

[DonCoquixote]

68. there is no parallel

between whether adults could play a video game and whether walmart pays women cheap..besides that, you could wind up hurting a field where, surprise, many women are actually designing said games, and putting in new role models that kick ass as much as the boys.

[femrap]

69. In my mind, 'equality' doesn't

mean that women imitate men's violent actions. So are the dudes sodomized? Or used for a game of horseshoes?

The parallel is Patriarchy....it's the air we all breath.

[DonCoquixote]

70. actually

sometimes that and a lot worse. In all seriousness, there are games that slam patriarchy, like the "Bioshock" series, where Ayn Rand (a very male chauvinist pig, despite her biology) is ruthlessly parodied, as are many of the villains that the alices and lara crofts fight. So is a woman that stands up to the corporations (like many heroines, like those of the resident evil) series, a man, or somehow failing to solve problems in a feminine manner? That sentiment would not have helped Mother Jones or Susan B. Anthony much.

[femrap]

72. Did you read my

post? I was talking about VIOLENCE. There are certain things I admire about Ayn Rand...she was a pro-choice atheist for one so I wouldn't enjoy the parody.

You must be young...because I find your remarks jumbled and annoying.

Not worth my effort...buh bye, dude.

[DonCoquixote]

73. Ayn Rand

It is one thing to admire the atheist parts of Ayn Rand, but to admire the "Capitalism as unknown ideal" side, or the side of her that admired a serial killer and rapist?

http://gogreenteaparty.com/blog/2011/04/19/atlas-shrieked-the-story-of-ayn-rands-romancing-the-stone-cold-child-rapistkiller/

If you read the fountainhead, did you like the part where her hero rapes someone, and she likes it?

And yes, i wrote about violence, the sort of violence that often takes strong women to respond to, women who will tell the rapists and murderers that they too, can end up getting shot if need be.

Oh, not worth my effort often translates to "I refuse to understand you", as I am sure some men use that on feminists.

Then again, you liked Ayn Rand, who idolized Male rapists much more than any videogame.

[Taverner]

3. Good nt

[Shrek]

4. Thomas dissented from a Scalia opinion?

Joined by Breyer?

:wtf:

[Posteritatis]

41. The dissents are pretty loopy

One boils down to "the Founding Fathers were influenced by Puritans, so we should operate based on that doctrine today" and the other claimed this somehow violates parental rights.

[femrap]

61. Bad rep on pron....

must overcome pubic hair on Coke can.

[mwooldri]

5. Mixed bag of feelings here.

The Supreme court ruling is correct in a strictly constitutional manner.

However morally certain minors should not be exposed to certain media, be it violent video games, pornographic material, or worse... (republican newsletters??? only kidding...)

There already is a voluntary rating system in place. Most reputable retailers of certain media that is aimed at a mature audience do deny access to minors - they don't have to sell it to them! The CA law wanted to make it a crime.

So I guess the only thing we can do is "name and shame".

[bluevoter4life]

9. While I do agree there is a moral component for retailers...

The first line of defense ALWAYS comes down to parenting. In my much younger days, I went so far as to disagreeing with parental advisory labels, however, as I've matured an learned more and more, I see there is only so much an industry can do. They provide rating information about the products, then leave it up to the consumer as to whether or not to purchase it.

Video game ratings are a lot like movie ratings. You wouldn't take your 10 year old to see an R-rated movie because of the violence. If you do, you're not going to complain to the authorities that "you didn't know." Why should you allow your child to play a M-rated video game, then bitch because it was too violent.

There is something to be said about retailers who don't allow the sale of such titles to minors. I believe this is as far as they can go from a moral standpoint. That is to say, what more can they do other than post visible warnings around the store? Again though, if a child wants it bad enough, and the parents are soft, s/he'll just ask enough times and mom and dad will buy it to shut them up without taking the time to actually research the title for content. SCOTUS made the right call in this case.

[Godhumor]

13. Should movie theater (Rental places, Redbox kiosks, etc) workers/owners be criminally responsible if

A minor watches an R-rated movie?

Game ratings work the same way. I'm glad the standard is going to be universal.

[bluevoter4life]

18. Not sure if that question was directed at me or not

but no. Watching a movie is not a criminal offense. It is also hard to prove that any incident that occurs afterwards is a direct result of that movie. Again though, parenting is essential in this case. You have a responsibility to monitor your child's viewing habits.

[Warren Stupidity]

21. that is why we have introduced this new concept called "parenting"

It is a new mode of behavior intended to offload the nanny-state's efforts to control 'minors' by convincing the sorry sacks of shit that begat the little brats to control their behavior until they are old enough to fuck up all on their own.

[alp227]

27. disagree - the 1st amendment protects PRODUCTION of such games

but not the right of minors to purchase such games. Similar to how kids can't buy tobacco, alcoholic beverages, and pornography. Since when is there a "right to access" free expression? This is another example of the Supreme CourtPoration that's been licking the boots of big business ever since the Citizens United case.

[cui bono]

34. I agree with you completely. n/t

[alp227]

43. and i called into the Thom Hartmann show about this

http://www.ustream.tv/recorded/15661013

it's at 1:46:50 mark

I said basically that the first amendment protects speech but not accessing speech and that was why i disagreed with the court decision

[glen123098]

7. Good.

Censorship for adults always follows this "think of the children" nonsense.

[Phoonzang]

8. Excellent. nt

[Drale]

10. OMG The SCOTUS actually upheld the constitution for once?

The 1st amendment does not kick in when your 18, it stands for everyone no matter the age, and whether you like it or not video games are an art form and therefor protected speech.

[cui bono]

35. How exactly would this law have infringed upon kids' right to free speech? n/t

[Drale]

44. By stopping them from purchasing a form of art

If as a parent you choose not to allow your child to possess video games or other forms of art that is one thing, but a state has not business restricting art.

[cui bono]

46. Howis it different than minors not being allowed to purchase pornography or liquor? n/t

[Drale]

48. Well both pornography and liquor have been shown

to hurt the development of young people, while studies have shown that video games do not have a negative effect.

[cui bono]

49. Can you provide evidence regarding pornography?

Also, just curious, have you played/seen the "Mature" rated video games?

[Posteritatis]

52. You're referring to them as a monolith. Have you? (nt)

[cui bono]

54. Yes, I have. When did I refer to them as monolith?

I think you were reading something into my question that wasn't there. I myself have an xbox and enjoy playing Left for Dead 2 occasionally, I've played a bit of Grand Theft Auto and I played all the way through the single player of Red Dead Redemption. I have in my pile Gears of War, BioHazard (I think I'm getting the names right, my friend gave me a bunch of games after I purchased the xbox to mainly use as a media extender and I don't really play them or know them too well) The ones I play are not as bad as other games. My favorite game is Portal and Portal 2 and that has no violence. It's a more of a puzzle, you have to figure out how to go from chamber to chamber using the physics/tools of the game. I wish there were more games like that out there.

If you read the description of the new Duke Nukem game that's posted on this board today I think you wouldn't want your kids playing that. Seriously, they are extremely sexist and violent and full of profanity. And it seems the makers keep pushing the boundaries so they'll have the "coolest" games. So yes, I'm familiar and if I had young kids I wouldn't let them play some of the games I've heard about as well as some of the games I play, like L4D2 and GTA.

[cui bono]

80. I guess that "evidence" doesn't exist. n/t

[reformist2]

57. A lack of "studies" doesn't make a law unconstitutional.

If a community doesn't want stores selling certain junk to their kids, they have every right to pass such a law. Even if they are totally wrong.

[Drale]

58. So your fine when a school restricts a students access to

books like Catcher and the Rye? Video Games are now protected like books and that is how it should be, just because you don't like something don't try and restrict it from other people having it. If parents want to restrict the games their kids play that is one thing, and they should but the state should never try and be a parent.

[cui bono]

81. You're talking as if video games were all going to be outlawed.

It was only restricting minors from purchasing mature rated games.

Where is your evidence that pornography has a negative effect on children? I find it hard to believe that pornography does if these violent, misogynistic games don't.

Personally I think both do. But then no one cares as much if it just makes them more prone to violence against women.

[christx30]

67. So the community

should be allowed to decide what you are allowed to watch?
If you're in Alabama, and there is something that the community didn't like, they could have the right to stop you?
"All Blockbuster stores may not sell or rent copies of any Michael Moore film."

[Kurska]

62. Simpler answer: because pornography and liquor are not art.

The court decided video games can constitute art, so if you can have these of restrictions on videogames you'd need to put them on movies, music or any other artistic medium to be fair.

I have no interest in such dangerous social engineering.

[cui bono]

79. So you're fine with a right wing court telling you what is and isn't art?

Why isn't pornography art if a video game is? The only thing artistic about video games is the quality of the graphics. The "story lines" and violence and misogyny are certainly not imo, so if a video game is art then an x-rated movie certainly is as well. And who said this is only about art anyway? The court also decided money was speech. So I don't think I'm going to just blindly agree with this court.

Also, there are R-rated movies and X-rated movies and minors are not allowed in x-rated movies at all and need to be accompanied by an adult for R-rated movies.

[cui bono]

50. Also, when did purchasing become a free speech issue?

Did that happen when money was determined to be speech? Don't we all think that idea was ludicrous?

Following the purchasing idea, would regulations on various products be unconstitutional? The state wasn't restricting art. The games were not banned from either being produced or being sold. Parents could still purchase the games and give them to their kids.

[Kurska]

63. Access to speech is critical to free speech.

Whats the point of saying "You can make any artistic statement you want", but the prefacing it with "But no one will ever be allowed to see it".

That is a joke.

[cui bono]

77. They weren't banning the games completely.

A little less hyperbole please. Plenty of people see it. The issue is minors and Mature rated type of games.

[bongbong]

11. I don't disagree....

I don't disagree with the opinion, but oddly enough it fits with the way TPTB want the personalities of "the rabble" to become: contentious, angry, and war-like. Good for the future robotic controlled-by-joystick warfare state. Jay Gould's famous quote about the Divide And Conquer principle also comes to mind.

[Drale]

12. You know we claim to love research but

I keep hearing that same mantra over and over, that video games create violent behavior when all the valid studies show its the exact opposite.

[trumad]

16. I find the yelling comes from people who simply don't play video games

Hell---my wife was guilty of that when the kids were younger. She thought Turok would turn them into spear throwing killers.

[Drale]

23. If Dinosaurs attacked, she wouldn't want your kids to defend themselves?

:rofl:

[trumad]

28. LOL---that's what my kids told her.

[Godhumor]

37. I will worry when I see a kid at a petting zoo try to chuck an exotic bird at a pig n/t

[boppers]

56. Dayum.... never played it and I *still* got the reference. eom

[christx30]

74. I know when

I play Left 4 Dead for a couple of hours, I feel tired, and not violent. And I am not a violent person.
It relaxes me. Kind of like "Hate Hour" did for the citizens in the 1984 book/movie.

[Posteritatis]

38. Er, the decision is in part predicated on the *fact* that that connection doesn't exist. (nt)

[ZM90]

14. Call the media! The Supreme Court actually did something right!

[hakko936]

17. What bothers me is......

....that many times you will hear about exposure to these games/movies led to a person committing a violent crime because they didn't know the difference. If you can't limit the exposure, how do you allow it to be an excuse for crime? It doesn't make sense to me.

On the surface, I agree with the ruling, but I can certainly see the potential of this being a "double-edged sword".

[Drale]

24. Actually there has never been any evidence that playing violent video games

correlates with violent behavior and in fact all credible research shows just the opposite. Please just don't repeat the media's talking points and look at the research yourself.

[hakko936]

32. I didn't say I agreed...

....but did say that it is used as an excuse. I think it is complete BS, but it is used in the courts as an excuse.

[Posteritatis]

40. And this decision calls that excuse out as BS. (nt)

[John Paul Jones]

19. It is troubling to me that there were actually two dissenters...

The Constitution is not that hard to understand.

I think the time has come to appoint some non-lawyers to the SC. Perhaps then, more decisions would be "constitutional" and clear cut cases like this one, would be 9-0 slam dunks.

[Warren Stupidity]

20. This Court is a Strong Defender of the First Amendment....

when global corporate interests are involved. Otherwise, you peasants can just sit down and shut up.

[E-Z-B]

22. Exactly. This isn't about free speech. It's about letting corporations having free, unfettered

access to children.

[Warren Stupidity]

26. In a related development...

"Supreme Court to decide whether police can attach GPS device to a car without a warrant
Is tracking a motorist for several weeks with a GPS device an 'unreasonable search' under the 4th Amendment? The Supreme Court says it will hear the case this fall."

My guess is that a sharply divided court (5-4) will decide that there is no constitutional problem with this.

[ButterflyBlood]

29. So Clarence Thomas is anti-corporatist now?

:rofl:

[cui bono]

36. You could go read his reason if you wanted to:

And Thomas said the majority read something into the First Amendment that isn't there.

"The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that "the freedom of speech," as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians," Thomas wrote.
http://beta.news.yahoo.com/court-calif-cant-ban-violent-video-game-sales-143011848.html

He's actually right, well I'm not sure about the "right to speak to minors" but about the right to access. Otherwise minors would have no restrictions on them at all for anything.

This is not a freedom of speech issue. The companies were never in danger of not being able to exercise free speech. The production of these games was never in jeopardy.

[Kurska]

66. Removing the possibility of sales to a massive segment of the population wouldn't effect production?

Maybe you need to take an economics class.

[cui bono]

78. You mean like liquor and pornography? Products of the past I guess.

Yep. None of that around anymore since minors couldn't purchase either.

[Posteritatis]

39. How would this decision not defend my own First Amendment rights?

(Hypothetically, that is, seeing as I'm north of the border.)

[cui bono]

45. Well, how would it limit it?

It's not about freedom of speech. The companies were never in danger of not being able to exercise free speech. The production of these games was never in jeopardy.

And you were never in danger of losing any of your first amendment rights as far as I can tell. How would it have endangered your rights?

[Posteritatis]

51. By imposing criminal penalties and uselessly vague regulations to support a moral panic? (nt)

[cui bono]

53. Your post is pretty vague. This particular law. How does it infringe on your rights exactly? n/t

[Kurska]

65. It infringes on the rights of every sub 18 year old in california to access art. n/t

[cui bono]

76. This other person specifically said HIS/HER rights.

But I'm flattered at you following me around.

[Warren Stupidity]

47. Oh it does defend your 1st rights, but only because

there are major corporate interests involved. Your rights get protected in this case as a side effect of the pervasive corruption that dominates the federal government.

[ButterflyBlood]

30. Great decision

Nice to see the Supreme Court get it right for once.

[reformist2]

55. Terrible decision. Of course the government can restrict what children buy!

You know, because they're children!

The higher courts had no business even considering this case, imo.

[WatsonT]

59. I thought that's what parents were for

[Kurska]

64. Parents are so 20th century.

We have computers for that now.

[AverageJoe90]

71. I think it's a victory for free speech. =)

Hi folks. Heard about this yesterday on MoxNews' YT channel.
I've been a gamer for a long time & have played a wide variety of games, from Grand Theft Auto, to the original Super Mario Bros., and all sorts in between, and I thought this was great news.

I know some of you guys may not be big fans of some of the more hardcore games, but IMHO, this may actually be a victory for freedom of expression. Think about this: If a well-behaved 13-year-old kid with permissive parents wanted to buy GTA or Saints Row, but couldn't because of federal law, how do you think he or she would feel? Try to walk a mile in their shoes. =)

Anyway, that's just my 2 cents. Feel free to share your thoughts in a reply if you'd like.

-Steven, former part-time lurker, joined today. =)

[and-justice-for-all]

75. What a waste of tax dollars and time...

Parents need to just learn how to be PARENTS.