Wargame: Airland Battle trailer details dynamic campaign
Halo 'Bootcamp' confirmed by Microsoft
Weekend PC download deals: Tomb Raider for $14
Game Dev Tycoon studio outlines future plans
Baldur's Gate 2 Enhanced already has 350,000 words of new content
Supreme Court Considers Hearing on Violent Video Game Legislation
by Nick Breckon, Sep 29, 2009 3:20pm PDTThe U.S. Supreme Court will decide today whether to hear arguments on a California law that would bar minors from buying violent video games, according to CNBC.
The bill, initially introduced by California assemblyman Leland Yee, was signed into law in 2005 by governor Arnold Schwarzenegger. The Entertainment Software Association (ESA) quickly sued the state, and a district judge blocked the law on the grounds of First Amendment protection. A federal judge ruled that the law was unconstitutional in August of 2007. The state of California appealed the decision, leading to another rejection in February of this year by the U.S. 9th Circuit Court of Appeals. Now the Supreme Court could choose to make a final ruling.
Proponents of the law argue a link between violent games and real-world violence. However, in his 2007 ruling, District Judge Ronald Whyte stated that "the evidence does not establish that video games, because of their interactive nature or otherwise, are any more harmful than violent television, movies, internet sites or other speech-related exposures."
Schwarzenneger maintains that the law can only help parents to better protect their children from violent media.
"By prohibiting the sale of violent video games to children under the age of 18 and requiring these games to be clearly labeled, this law would allow parents to make better informed decisions for their kids," said the Governator.
Added Schwarzenneger in a recorded statement: "Stop whining, you son of a bitch!"
The Supreme Court's decision could be known as soon as Wednesday.
Comments
that said... how does this differ from porn? the supreme court has affirmed that porn does indeed fall under free speech and that adults should indeed be able to buy it. and i agree with that, even though im not a big porn connoisseur. i agree that *adults* should be able to buy just about whatever twisted shit they want. but id never agree that a minor child should be able to walk up to the counter of their local porno-hut and buy that same twisted shit on their own. same for video games, i think if an adult wants to buy some freaky-deeky "murder simulator" then have at it. but im not convinced that minor children should be able to buy it without restriction.
how do laws like these infringe on the rights of adults to consume the kind of entertainment they want? and if they dont, then how are they the awful bad things that everyone makes them out to be? id absolutely be opposed to any law that tried to restrict the sale of games to adults based on their content, and would consider that to have grounds on a first amendment basis... but that isnt the case here. and on the other side of it, if you DO think minors should be able to buy any kind of video game content without any restriction or requiring any parental consent, do you also advocate the same for porn? and if not, what are the fundamental differences between the two?
Thread Truncated. Click to see all 47 replies.
If rental places do not rent "mature" games, retailers probably won't stock them either. That means that sales of game with mature content would be very low. Content creators are then forced into making games that do not have mature content in them or significantly reduce content in order to win T or below ratings.
I don't think you would argue that some very violent games have artistic merit and that this artistic expression would be lost due to enforcement of the ratings. Since this hinders free expression, this is a form of censorship.
You must be logged in to post.