|
|
Post by rookie on Jun 28, 2011 8:26:34 GMT -5
I don't play video games often. But I am glad for this ruling.
|
|
|
|
Post by Shane for Wax on Jun 28, 2011 8:52:41 GMT -5
Thanks for posting those studies. I was too tired/in pain to find them myself. Every medium of expression should be protected unless that medium is murdering someone then painting in their blood. |
|
|
|
Post by erictheblue on Jun 28, 2011 9:26:27 GMT -5
I also think that using freedom of speech to protect things that made for commercial gain is ridiculous, the point of free speech is to protect political dissent and self expression, not to allow corporations to profit from obscenity. Obscenity is already not protected by the First Amendment. The question comes down to "what is obscenity"? That's where parents come in. If parents don't want their 13-year old to play games where you can shoot people in the head or have sex with aliens, DON'T LET YOUR 13-YEAR OLD BUY THE GAME! (There is an old saying - "Shut up and soldier, soldier!" Situations like me make me think "Shut up and parent, parent!") The law that was reviewed did nothing to stop adults from buying video games. All it did was punish retailers who allowed people under 18 to buy M-rated games. |
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 28, 2011 9:33:40 GMT -5
Wow, the First Amendment should not be this hard to figure out. "Freedom of speech" means freedom of speech in any medium. It is only in contention when the choice of medium violates another's rights. The medium being electronic, meh, that doesn't violate any rights.
|
|
|
|
Post by Smurfette Principle on Jun 28, 2011 10:14:18 GMT -5
You know, I actually believe that video games can have a negative effect on kids. And I believe that of television, books, and comics. But I still support this ruling, because honestly, that should have been a no-brainer. This has to be the biggest "duh" moment I've seen in the USSC.
|
|
|
|
Post by The Lazy One on Jun 28, 2011 10:27:03 GMT -5
Shadoom2, I'm curious- what exactly do you do for entertainment then?
|
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on Jun 28, 2011 10:36:11 GMT -5
Zen meditation on a wind-swept mountain top graced with only a single, stunted tree!
That's my vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Rime on Jun 28, 2011 11:03:27 GMT -5
Modernity is better than the 1900s, but it would be more better without video games. Yes, and we can see the fruits of literacy induced by books, can't we. |
|
|
|
Post by shiftyeyes on Jun 28, 2011 12:28:13 GMT -5
Shadoom, I'm going to read your argument charitably and assume you're basing it on the idea that commercial speech is not as protected or held as sacrosanct as private speech. That's all well and good and a concept I agree with. Companies shouldn't have the same speech rights as individuals. However, for legitimate artistic media, the fact that it's also a commercial enterprise does not override the sacrosanct free speech associated with artistic expression (even if none such expression is intended). Let's look at some examples.
Movies: The Hays code was self-adopted censorship to preempt government censorship. They fear this because Congress threatened the same justification you're trying: it's not art; it's commerce. We can regulate commercial speech. This was in place for a long time but eventually stopped because movies were more profitable when non-compliant. Further, it lost it's bite in 1952 when the USSC ruled film was a protected artistic medium and not merely commercial.
TV: Some restrictions are allowed because public airwaves are used. Cable has a Hays code thing going on (preemptive self regulation), but likely doesn't need it depending on how dependent cable companies are for government assistance in getting their medium out.
Comics: Had a preemptive code. It fell through.
Society has decided that not allowing art to be produced is harmful. Even though art production is a commercial enterprise, it is protected speech. Because video games are an art form, they are protected just as much as film.
|
|
|
|
Post by Distind on Jun 28, 2011 14:19:38 GMT -5
It's not that hard really, games are a combination of 2d/3d art, story and music presented through a layer of interactive media. It's art, the vast majority of the work in a game will go towards the artistic portions. It's just a new form of it which is readily exploitable for commercial gain. Much live movies and music are, and like painting once was.
Compare the piss chirst and fallout, which is worth preserving?
|
|
|
|
Post by Amaranth on Jun 28, 2011 16:05:34 GMT -5
The law that was reviewed did nothing to stop adults from buying video games. All it did was punish retailers who allowed people under 18 to buy M-rated games. And the funny thing is, not many are doing it. Well, 13% of shoppers in the FTC deal could, but when you consider the hysteria, you'd think Gamestop was practically pushing them on kids. What's more, when you compare it to other "adult" media, video games are consistently better policed. Which goes back to what you said about parents. I can't help but wonder how many kids seem to get the games, get online, and play for so long without anyone being the wiser. |
|
|
|
Post by jackmann on Jun 28, 2011 16:06:21 GMT -5
So, who decides what mediums, what examples in the mediums, is harmful?
The government decides that books are harmful, since they spread bad ideas like communism, so they ban books they don't like. Maybe they decide that books about atheism harm the moral fiber of our nation, so those get banned. Then anything that goes against government policy.
You want to talk about harmful? Mein Kampf has done a hell of a lot more harm than any video game.
So, television and internet shouldn't be protected. Where do you think most people get their news these days? Ain't newspapers. I absolutely loathe Fox News, but I think freedom of the press is too important to restrict the news services.
The problem is, any argument you make to restrict videogames can be used against any artistic medium. And even if we can agree that there are some things that people shouldn't read, watch, or play, there isn't anyone I would trust with deciding just what that is.
|
|
|
|
Post by creedencelgielgud on Jun 28, 2011 17:13:37 GMT -5
I really think the media should be regulated. At least in the US. It's grown to be almost like an unofficial fourth branch of the government. Nothing that powerful, and influential should be allowed to operate almost completely unquestioned, and unchecked.
|
|
|
|
Post by Vene on Jun 28, 2011 18:55:25 GMT -5
I really think the media should be regulated. At least in the US. It's grown to be almost like an unofficial fourth branch of the government. Nothing that powerful, and influential should be allowed to operate almost completely unquestioned, and unchecked. It was supposed to be unregulated so that they can keep tabs on the government, and it has worked well in the past (Pentagon Papers, anyone?) |
|
|
|
Post by nightangel1282 on Jun 28, 2011 21:18:20 GMT -5
Damn it! Just this morning on Yahoo news I saw a video that I couldn't watch in the school (no sound allowed on in the computer lab and I don't have any headphones). The basic gist of it was some woman in Canada is trying to get violent games banned so it doesn't influence the "impressionable youth". I can't offer any details because I can't find anything else on it now...
|
|
