Supreme Court rules videogame ban unconstitutional (US)

Courier said:
That's already illegal, minors can't buy 'M' rated games without someone over the age of 18 with them.
Click to expand...
It's 17 years old and you bet your ass they can, just like they can buy R rated movies. Most stores have a company policy to refuse to sell them to unaccompanied minors (which I wonder about...) but they are perfectly within their rights to.

The ruling also declared videogames as a protected form of expression, like any other media, so it's nice to have legal confirmation despite it being blatantly obvious.
 
The problem is that not all game shops follow on the policy. Selling cigarrettes and alcohol to minors is ilegal, not just a policy of the companies.
Click to expand...

And why exactly does everything have to have a law about it? IMO, the Court is right when it decides against unnecessary legislation, it just drags the whole system down. The industry policy is working fine for the most part, and the issue is really not so serious as to require a law on the books.

Plus, there's a reason why alcohol and cigarettes are illegal for minors, and M-rated movies and games aren't. You seem to be implying the same level of harm, but the effects aren't even comparable at all. Alcohol and drugs are medically proven to be harmful to health; mature content isn't.

Finally, it's a personal choice, and it's a responsibility of the parents that the government shouldn't intrude. It's their choice how to bring up the child, and if the kid can just go and buy whatever without supervision, then that lack of control is the parents' choice as well. Personally, the whole push for legal regulation on every social issue in the States is still making me roll my eyes. Do Americans value freedom so much that they want to restrict it at every corner?

As for political value of this decision, I'd say it's nil other than for the parties concern. Had it been highly controversial, the vote wouldn't have been 7-2. Seems more like a throwaway non-issue case to me.

-------------
Looking at the CNN article, caught the quote from Breyer's dissent:

"The First Amendment does not disable government from helping parents make such a choice here -- a choice not to have their children buy extremely violent, interactive games,"

Ignoring the number of double-negatives, try to re-read that and think it through. Still makes sense? Nope. He tries to imply that violent games are as bad or worse than pornography, and suggests that the case is about education not censorship, and about the government helping parents make the right choice. More like the "only choice" if he had his way. If that's not the way to censorship then I don't know what is.

With that being the best the dissenters have to offer (well, we also have Thomas, but we all know what he wrote - his usual extreme conservative textualist interpretation that even Scalia didn't agree with here - not really worth mentioning), I find this case being quite silly and obvious. The funniest thing is, though, if you read the CNN article, how self-righteous they try to appear criticizing the Court for making the decision. Gotta love it when the journalism's effort to appeal to the target base defies common sense :roll:
 
Hey I never said there needed to be a law, I said this is pointless and I don't think anybody should give a crap, but I like partaking in discussions.
 
UncannyGarlic said:
The ruling also declared videogames as a protected form of expression, like any other media, so it's nice to have legal confirmation despite it being blatantly obvious.
Click to expand...
Agreed. Anyway, how would you like it if they had ruled the other way - that video games weren't a protected form of speech? That would be utter garbage. So it's good even though they simply did their duty reinforced the obvious truth.

Of more concern are the social nannies who crafted this idiocy in the first place, and the lower court that affirmed it. I'm sure their next step will be to try and figure a way to circumvent the ruling with a new law.
 
Anyway, how would you like it if they had ruled the other way - that video games weren't a protected form of speech?
Click to expand...

The dissent's argument is to regulate M-rated games using the same reasoning as for regulating pornography.
 
He said M rated games, they are supposed to be a product for adults, not that it matters in the least.
 
As I did say, I also think it's an overly extreme argument, precisely why it's one of the two lone dissents. I was just pointing out the Breyer's reasoning - it's not that adult games aren't a "protected form of speech", but that regulation is necessary because he sees them as a potentially harmful form of speech, like pornography (age-restricted) or "hate speech" (universally legally unacceptable).

The classification as "art" is both reassuring and dangerous though - while it ensures protection, it's also vague because "artistic value" is, in the end, a highly subjective definition even legally, and the Court can reverse it whenever it feels like it.

I suppose every new entertainment medium has to go through this, though. The music industry had a similar battle against "concerned parents and statesmen" just 25 years ago or so.
 
I guess movies had to suffer the same one way or another.

Though values sometimes changes within a society. So it is good that it is now at least obvious that games are another form of "speech/media" and are not seen like anything special here. If I got it right after all.
 
Ausdoerrt said:
As I did say, I also think it's an overly extreme argument, precisely why it's one of the two lone dissents. I was just pointing out the Breyer's reasoning - it's not that adult games aren't a "protected form of speech", but that regulation is necessary because he sees them as a potentially harmful form of speech, like pornography (age-restricted) or "hate speech" (universally legally unacceptable).
Click to expand...
"A potentially harmful form of speech" could be anything. By that argument you could ban everything from Howard Stern to a gay pride parade to a Sarah Palin speech, depending on who was doing the banning.

Hate speech isn't universally legally unacceptable, BTW. You just can't advocate specific acts of violence.
 
Ausdoerrt said:
I was just pointing out the Breyer's reasoning - it's not that adult games aren't a "protected form of speech", but that regulation is necessary because he sees them as a potentially harmful form of speech, like pornography (age-restricted) or "hate speech" (universally legally unacceptable).
Click to expand...


Hate speech isn't illegal.

Ever heard of the Westboro Baptist Church? They take 'hate speech' to another level.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top