The Supreme Court says video games are cool after all
Matt Hawkins Or, to be more exact, it’s protected under the First Amendment after all. Take that California!
Why give grief to Cali? Because for the past six years, its lawmakers have wanted to push an edict that would make the selling of violent games to kids a bona fide crime. 7 judges to 2 in the highest court of the land argued that such a rule doesn’t jive well with the First Amendment (something that lower courts had also come to conclusion of over a bunch of years now).
There are numerous reasons and arguments why the judges called it as they did. You’ll find insightful commentary all over the place (the fact that this is the very first time the Supreme Court has ever ruled anything video game related means its very big news), with Kotaku’s being perhaps being the most comprehensive yet still easily digestible nonetheless.
Still, for those who really want just the barest of essentials, here’s my down and dirty analysis…
“Disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression.”
That’s what Justice Antonin Scalia had to say. There’s plenty of books and movies that offends the masses, but they deserve to be protected, and why not video games? While the jury may still be out on whether they’re intellectually stimulating, the freedom to not only express one’s self but also absorb other’s sentiments is undeniable. Though one reason why it’s seeming okay is the acknowledgment that it’s entertainment, and…
If violent movies, tv shows, and books are okay, so should be games.
Basically, if there was an established tradition of restricting children access from other forms of entertainment, the same could be done with games. But there isn’t, simple as that. Furthermore…
Video games are interactive. So are books.
One of the main points of games being something that should be treated differently by Cali lawmakers is how that they’re interactive, and therefore contain potential dangers that something more passive, like a violent movie would not contain. But the very nature of reading a book and imagining all the scenarios and the like is another form of interactivity. Sorry, sorta the same thing. Plus…
It has yet to be proven that games are all that bad for kids.
For years researchers have been trying to find a concrete connection between violence in games and violent behavior in the real world. It has yet to be proven, and I believe it’s a safe bet that it never will (as noted already). The Supreme Court believes, until there’s a study that can (which again, might not ever happen), the argument is moot.
The ratings that games have are doing a good enough job as is.
The rating system that has been established by the Entertainment Software Review Board does a good enough job of informing parents and the general public of the content of game’s content. Personally, I don’t really agree with such a position, but ultimately its there for parents to use those guidelines, along with folks selling them, to be aware of what is up. Though on a related note…
Games can’t be that bad if parents buy them.
An odd statement, but makes total sense. It basically states that that parents are the ultimate judge of what’s appropriate for their kids, cuz they’re… you know, the parents? Somewhat similar to if a parent is there to escort a youngin into an ultra bloody or boob filed rated R flick, the same applies to mom or dad buying their kid a copy of Call of Duty. I’m personally not aware of all the aspects of the proposed ban, but for the looks of it, a child getting his hands on a violent game would have potentially gotten the parents in hot water, which sounds so ridiculous that it’s probably the case. Hey, California has some stupid politicians over there (which most residents will be more than willing to agree).
… Though not every judge was in agreement. One basically brought up the notion that, maybe the First Amendment isn’t necessarily for kids? After all, if parents are supposed to be the ones to oversee every aspect of their child’s life, doesn’t that therefore mean that they can’t handle all the responsibilities that come with such freedom? And there are responsibilities, no doubt there. Another, far more compelling point is, if the video game industry wants violent games out of kids’ hands, why shouldn’t the government? Again, it’s a point of view that isn’t exactly easy to dismiss, no matter how much we’d like to.
Though most will agree that one of the main reasons why the Californian rule could not be supported was due to its vagueness. And given the counterpoints presented, which again, are not that bad, along with how video games are still in their infancy… expect the debate to rage on even further.
follow guyism:
Other Stories You Might LIke
In China, their meter maids look like Lara Croft
If they made a ‘Tetris’ movie, it would look a lot like this
Game consoles are superior than PCs says guy in his kitchen
comment on this story
blog comments powered by Disqus