• Join Us |
  • |
  • Sign in with:

Hot News

Latest News

View All

Games & Free Speech

by Maarten Goldstein, May 01, 2002 7:20am PDT

For some reason, this story fell through the cracks earlier. CNN Money has a new Game Over column looking at the recent ruling by a judge who said violent and sexually explicit video games are not free speech. Some might not find this strange, however, the same judge says something like a junk fax is free speech, as are movies. So how did he come to the decision that games aren't protected by the First Amendment? According to him, games have "no conveyance of ideas, expression or anything else that could possibly amount to free speech. ... Video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures.". The "no conveyance of ideas, expression" part was based on taking a look at all of four games. They were "The Resident of Evil Creek," "Mortal Kombat," "Doom" and "Fear Effect." . Yes, The Resident of Evil Creek, whatever that might be. Hardly material competing with Hollywood storylines, such as Final Fantasy or Metal Gear Solid 2. What's worse though, is that this is partly the fault of the game industry group IDSA.

The ironic twist in all of this is the gaming industry only has itself to blame for the ruling. The Interactive Digital Software Association (IDSA), which represents gaming companies in this case, did an atrocious job of serving its members. <snip> Asked to counter this, IDSA president Douglas Lowenstein merely provided an affidavit explaining how video games are created and discussing the "extensive plot and character development" today's games contain and sample scripts from other titles. What he failed to show was the final versions of those games.
The ruling by Judge Limbaugh means local governments can restrict access to video games, as they are trying to do in St. Louis.


Read all the News


Comments

« Previous 1 2 Next »
47 Threads | 139 Comments
  • #134
    Refresh Thread
    By: ornee x
    Reply
    This is much ado over nothing -- or at least, in that damn foreigner Maarten's case, little understanding of how the First Amendment works. ;)

    In a nutshell, not all speech in the US is afforded the same kinds of protection from the government. And even among those kinds that do merit protection, there are varying degrees of protection for different types of speech and in different contexts -- public political speech being among the most highly defended by our courts. There's no absolute protection of all speech.

    This is also a good wake-up call for people who don't understand our constitution. Grab a book, or if you've never touched one of those, go spend some time on, say, Findlaw.com or ACLU.org, reading about the First Amendment. When assholes come to control the games that you want to buy and play, you'll be better prepared to argue with them.
    May 01, 2002 5:27pm PDT
  • #128
    Refresh Thread
    By: el-kaboom x
    Reply
    Disappointing. Perhaps the difficulty in seeing games as a form of free speech lies in not understanding the concept of games.

    I've often considered a game good based on it's ability to play like a book reads. Half-Life for instance. It provides enough story to create atomosphere then allows you to act out the scenes as you see fit (for the most part). The game, while sitting there on your hard drive is nothing more than a book on a shelf. But when it's picked up to play the game provides a medium to allow the player to "express themselves," and be the main character. To me that's more than a "meaningful idea" movie or book can offer.

    In answer to the violence in video games, that could simply be called smart business, selling what sells. Shit, Hollywood has been doing that for years.
    May 01, 2002 4:21pm PDT
  • #115
    Refresh Thread
    By: her0d x
    Reply
    The problem that I see is that government types are always looking for a scapegoat. And it was the gaming industry's responsibility not to let it be that scapegoat. They (we) unfortunately did a very substandard job of it. We're the Lee Harvey Oswald of the new millenium... Gaming gets blamed for everything. And is seen by the majority as content free, warpers of young minds. Just the fact that they referred to "Resident Evil" as "The Resident of Evil Creek" shows how ignorant they are to anything about the industry. We, as the gaming community have a responsibility to educate about our art form... And cannot assume that everyone knows what we know. Teach them about games like they were children, just like we were.
    May 01, 2002 2:20pm PDT
  • #81
    Refresh Thread
    By: jvox x
    Reply
    I'm not sure if this falls in the realm of free speech either. What idea is expressed when one plays a game of Tetris or Pac-Man? These games are pretty much just entertaining exercises in keeping yourself in play for as long as possible. Sometimes it's by trying to keep your stack of shapes from reaching the top of the screen, sometimes it's by taking out your opponent with a head shot before he can do the same to you. Sometimes these games are placed in a setting inspired by books and films to add to their appeal, and sometimes games contain a narrative that does fall under the expression of ideas, but for the most part the games at their core are essentially no different from Pac-Man or Berzerk. But even if games aren't considered free speech, that doesn't mean it's open season on them for politicians. We have other freedoms aside from freedom to express our ideas. We have the freedom to pursue life, liberty and happiness, as long as we don't infringe on the rights of others to do so. Those are the freedoms that should protect our right to create and/or play any game we want.
    May 01, 2002 10:59am PDT
  • #13
    Refresh Thread
    By: FuryVII x
    Reply
    What about the fact that many movies being made are based on games? So the movies have a point but the very thing the were derived form don't?

    Or how about games based on comic book characters, ala Spiderman, Superman, X-Men, and so forth. Last I checked if the comics that depict the story, have a game based one them, both have ideas and such.

    Where the fuck is the thought in this?

    Spiderman Comic... "no conveyance of ideas, expression or anything else that could possibly amount to free speech. ... Video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."

    Spiderman Movie... "no conveyance of ideas, expression or anything else that could possibly amount to free speech. ... Video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."

    Spiderman Game... "no conveyance of ideas, expression or anything else that could possibly amount to free speech. ... Video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."

    Tell me does that make sense?
    May 01, 2002 8:04am PDT

    Thread Truncated. Click to see all 3 replies.

  • #40
    Refresh Thread
    By: Q-ball x
    Reply
    I find it funny, alot of replies saying "This judge is retarded", but if you read through this again you will see that this isn't his fault, its the IDSA's. They presented a friggin affidavit?!!?! That was their evidence!?? "Hi I am the president of the IDSA and I think games are good because we have stories and characters that require development in an interactive medium"... If this was their only argument then I'll bet that the judge made the ruling simply due to the IDSA's negligenc in this case. If you want to blame someone, blame them. If you saw only those 3 (dunno resident evil of cedar creek one) games as an example of video games and their free-speech, many of you would come to the same conclusion too, I'd bet (remember you have no real experience with computer games other than seeing those in your court). I think its sad that the IDSA screwed up so royally, but it is ultimately us that will suffer. I just hope they spend the time and patience to appeal with a better lawyer and go through their next case a hell of a lot more thoroughly.
    May 01, 2002 8:55am PDT

    Thread Truncated. Click to see all 2 replies.

  • #30
    Refresh Thread
    By: jasonepowell x
    Reply
    Excellent overview of the situation from an outside standpoint. Us, as gamers, don't think about the business aspects, but any industry that grows to be any size at all is going to experience this kind of stuff. It's how limits get set.

    I am gratified to see the absurdity of this ruling, and the absolutely terrible, horrendous job defending against it done by the IDSA. Any Shacker, including kaber, ILF or Klerck with a goatse shirt on, could have done a better job. That's the real scandal, as this ruling can NOT stand up to further review.

    The Doom novels are crap, but protected. Doom, however, is not? What the fuck ever.
    May 01, 2002 8:42am PDT