California Game Law Rejected by Supreme Court
The Supreme Court has nuked the law which bans the sale of "violent" video games to minors under 18 in California.
CNN reports that the Supreme Court has rejected California's impending law banning the sale of "violent" video games to minors. The controversial law was struck down by a 7-2 vote on a belief that it abridges the First Amendment rights of young people whose legal guardians and adult family members "think violent video games are a harmless pastime."
"Like the protected books, plays, and movies that preceded them, video games communicate ideas - and even social messages - through many familiar literary devices (such as characters, dialogue, plot, and music) and through features distinctive to the medium (such as the player's interaction with the virtual world)," wrote Justice Antonin Scalia who ruled against the law. "That suffices to confer First Amendment protection. Under our Constitution, 'esthetic and moral judgments about art and literature . . . are for the individual to make, not for the Government to decree, even with the mandate or approval of a majority'."
Still, according to Justice Stephen Breyer who voted in favor of the law, the First Amendment does not disable government from helping parents make a choice of not having their children buy extremely violent, interactive games. He was joined by Justice Clarence Thomas who also voted in favor of the California law, saying that having parents purchase the violent games for their children was reasonable.
"The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that 'the freedom of speech,' as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors' parents or guardians," he said. "I would hold that the law at issue is not facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and reverse and remand for further proceedings."
Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, and Sonia Sotomayor were among those who ruled against the law. Scalia said the court had never permitted government regulation of minors' "access to any forms of entertainment except on obscenity grounds." He also compared the law with other failed attempts to restrict violent content from minors including Snow White, Grimm's Fairy Tales, movies, comic books, television and even music lyrics.
Justices Samuel Alito and Chief Justice John Roberts, who also opposed the law and rounds out the seven, agreed that California went too far while also suggesting that the law should be rewritten to comply with the First Amendment. "We should make every effort to understand the new technology," Alito said.
In a move that still seems contradictory to this day, the then-Governor of California Arnold "The Terminator" Schwarzenegger signed the bill back in 2005, claiming that adults "have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies."
Determined not to be gunned down by the "Governator," the gaming industry (aka the Entertainment Merchants Association or ESA) filed a lawsuit in federal court and won an injunction halting the enforcement of that law until the courts dealt with the free speech problems. But had the bill become actual law, retailers would have faced up to $1000 USD in fines for selling violent video games to minors under the age of 18. Game publishers and retailers would have also been required to post an "18" sticker or sign on excessively violent games.
Victory statements provided by the ESA can be found here. Senator Leland Yee protests the ruling, claiming that the Supreme Court chose corporate interests over children, as seen here. What do you think?
UPDATE: The Video Game Bar Association just sent over this statement in an email:
The Video Game Bar Association welcomes the decision of the United States Supreme Court in Brown v EMA. “The Court’s decision reaffirms that it is parents who can best decide what is appropriate content for their children,” said David S. Rosenbaum, president of the VGBA, adding that the decision “puts to rest the notion that video games are entitled to less First Amendment protection than books, newspapers, films and music and other entertainment speech.”
By reinforcing that statutes, such as the statute passed by the California legislature, must pass the “the strict scrutiny” test, “the Court lays bare the notion that the states are better equipped to evaluate content than the independent ratings board established by the industry to provide information to parents so that they can best determine what is appropriate content for their children,” said Patrick Sweeney, Executive Vice President of the VGBA.
“We are gratified that the Court took note of the demonstrable success of the ESRB system and that the industry continues to get the highest marks of compliance by a media industry segment (over films-TV and music) in the annual FTC undercover shopper survey,” said George Rose, a member of the VGBA Board. Added Rosenbaum, “the Court took note that the California statute was passed in spite of numerous precedents from around the nation's federal courts, holding similarly drafted statutes (seeking to make violence obscene) unconstitutional. Hundreds of thousands of taxpayer dollars have been awarded in payment of legal fees in these cases, leading up to today’s decision. With the Court’s ruling today, we hope that we have seen the last of these regulatory exercises.”
- Faceless Watch Still Tells Time
- OnLive Wants to Bring Cloud Tech to Consoles
- Vizio Making LED LCD TVs... and LED Lightbulbs?
- iPhone 5 Sources Point Dual LED Flash
- VOTW: A Dual-screen Folding Smartphone Tablet
- Report: MSFT Working on Free-to-Play for Xbox
- Designers Take Cocktail Dress to a New Level
- Robot Hand Draws Sloppy, Creepy Portraits
- Volkswagen Unveils Temporary Auto-Pilot
- Microsoft Could Integrate Eavesdropping in Skype
- Tokyo U's PossessedHand Controls Your Fingers
- New Bodyguard Weapon Packs a Punch
- Google Estimates Facebook Gets 10^12 PVs
- Meet the Portable, Solar Catamaran
- KMI KeyWorx Offers Foot Operated Computing
- LulzSec Disbands After 50 Days of Hacking
- MSFT Dubs Handheld Console Market 'Red Ocean'
- Sony Hacker GeoHot Now Working at Facebook
- Analyst: Apple Building 2 iPhones for September
This is, like the Supreme Court says, no different than other media. The film industry has rating standards (PG-13, R, etc) which theaters follow, but the important difference is that it's entirely a private matter, not a government one. The California law is the equivalent of making it illegal and punishable by law to let a 15-year-old into an R rated movie. Sure, the theaters will kick you out if you try to sneak into an R rated film, and any store has the right to refuse to sell a violent video game to a minor. But it absolutely shouldn't be punishable by law.
These games and other media wind up in the hands of minors regardless of who's allowed to purchase it. It's a silly waste of time some politicians want to use for their own political gains / campaigning. If the parents dont know what their kid is doing, or whether or not those activities will have a negative impact on the child, its the parents' fault. Where did the kid get the money? Parents should be following their child's money trail regardless and acting appropriately.
These games and other media wind up in the hands of minors regardless of who's allowed to purchase it. It's a silly waste of time some politicians want to use for their own political gains / campaigning. If the parents dont know what their kid is doing, or whether or not those activities will have a negative impact on the child, its the parents' fault. Where did the kid get the money? Parents should be following their child's money trail regardless and acting appropriately.
These games and other media wind up in the hands of minors regardless of who's allowed to purchase it. It's a silly waste of time some politicians want to use for their own political gains / campaigning. If the parents dont know what their kid is doing, or whether or not those activities will have a negative impact on the child, its the parents' fault. Where did the kid get the money? Parents should be following their child's money trail regardless and acting appropriately.
The California law is the equivalent of making it illegal and punishable by law to let a 15-year-old into an R rated movie. Sure, the theaters will kick you out if you try to sneak into an R rated film, and any store has the right to refuse to sell a violent video game to a minor. But it absolutely shouldn't be punishable by law.
That's the right train of thought, but lets continue it. So with it illegal, the kid sneaks into the theater, but now the theater is getting fined because a kid snuck in. In fact the punishment becomes so harsh that the theater then stops showing R rated movies less and less often as they cannot afford security. So now the Stuidos cant make money off R rated movies and they stop making R rated movies and move on to just PG-13 flicks.
Which is what Leland Yee, D (Really a Democrat, so much for liberal!)- CA, wants for video games. Get the state to hassle retailers so harshly they turn on the developers and get them to censor their own games.
In what respect: a harmless adult pastime, a harmless child pastime or even both? I might find firing a gun with live rounds at a rusty tin-can a harmless past-time, but would it be wise to let a child do the same?
In what respect: a harmless adult pastime, a harmless child pastime or even both? I might find firing a gun with live rounds at a rusty tin-can a harmless past-time, but would it be wise to let a child do the same?
Seems to me the point they are making is that it's the guardians choice whether it is harmless fun or not. If the guardian thinks the violent game is fine for kids then they can let the play it if they believe it isn't good for kids they can say no. Basically it's the parents who make the decision whether the game should be played by their child and not the state or the government, and I think it's the right decision for them to keep their noses out of it. Let the parents decide if their child can play that game, that is what parents are supposed to do to begin with.
So how long until porn falls under this and kids can buy it? Doesn't that stifle first amendment rights? I guess cigarettes and alcohol are next...
if they on a farm and not an idiot then yea, i know of many of my friends that was also brought up on farms, before we all were even 12 we all knew excactly how to handle a gun. our parents allowed us to go shoot when we want(daytime off course). and this gun saved my life once when a bushpig stormed at me.
but the point im bringing over is many things can be bad but that it is the parents job to ensure their child is ready for what the parent allows the child to be exposed too.
So how long until porn falls under this and kids can buy it? Doesn't that stifle first amendment rights? I guess cigarettes and alcohol are next...
Pornography is classified as "obscenity" under law, and as such it is exempt from First Amendment protection. I read through the decision, and the justices did acknowledge that this country is much more comfortable with children seeing violence than nudity. Whether or not that's right isn't for the courts to decide; in this case, there's a lengthy history of acceptance of kids being allowed access to violent content in other media forms, and in their opinion videogames are not fundamentally different from other types of media to warrant its own set of rules and regulations.
Tobacco and alcohol are not an expression of ideas, and thus do not fall at all under the 1st Amendment's jurisdiction. Also, they have a proven history of harmful effects on children (and adults, too), whereas with videogames the known effects have not been established (if there are any; the research has been very contradictory and/or inconclusive).
I tend to agree more with Justice Thomas' view on the issue- rights for minors are reserved to their guardians. Which the Cali law is in line with. At the same time, more freedom is always a good thing. It is a parents responsibility to monitor what their children are doing. Just so long as this doesn't turn into a situation where a minor is granted rights by the courts to disobey their parents censorship on grounds of free speech.
Good stuff. When I used to be a "minor", I played every FPS/RTS/RPG which was deemed "violent"/"inappropriate" by the media (ME1/ME2, GTA, CS, you name it) and I don't think it changed me in any way, I actually learned most of my English through it. If someone is dumb enough to go on a killing rampage because the game they were given was "violent", then they're just dumb in general and should be isolated from the society. I played Quake 1 when I was 12, and all I remember is that it was a fun FPS, just the graphics strained my eyes a bit (too low-res). While everyone was ranting about Hot Coffee mod for GTA:SA and how the game should be given higher ratings, I didn't even bother to download it, because the TV nowadays shows much more sexual content at any time. When they were ranting about Mass Effect "sex simulator", I was paying attention to the storyline and gameplay instead of worrying whether I'll see naked aliens/humans or not.
Linking video game violence and real world is pure BS. Yes, I *enjoy* firefights and explosions in GTA and Just Cause 2, it's damn fun blowing up the entire town and gunning down everyone on your way, but what does it have to do with real life? We all know that video games are meant for experiencing something we can't or *don't* want to experience in real life (full-scale war, for instance), and it makes no sense to project video game content into the actions of the person in real life.
And no, it is NOT similar to cigarettes or alcohol. Those two things ruin your PHYSICAL health. Your MENTAL health cannot be ruined by the amount of violence in games or movies. Sure, some games that ARE really bloody/scary (F.E.A.R., chainsaw/blade dismemberment games) are better kept away from 5-year-old kids. But to give Mass Effect or GTA an 18+ rating because of a few curse words and romantic scenes? I'd have these ratings reduced to 13+.
So how long until porn falls under this and kids can buy it? Doesn't that stifle first amendment rights? I guess cigarettes and alcohol are next...
You are right my friend.
Nice that US have laws that protect the Devil.
USA is the least Christian country of them all.
GUARDIANS ARE NOT GOOD FOR THEY CHILDREN
when they allow them violence
THAT*S WHY you should have laws to protect the innocent
now you don't. Too bad...really Bad...BAD!
The Judgement Day is coming...
USA is the least Christian country of them all.
GUARDIANS ARE NOT GOOD FOR THEY CHILDREN
when they allow them violence
THAT*S WHY you should have laws to protect the innocent
now you don't. Too bad...really Bad...BAD!
The Judgement Day is coming...
HerpaDerp!
the only thing censorship does is cut taxes from the government. You can try and tell people what they can and can not do, but there still going to do it.
People are going to want to play these games, just like kids want to watch R rated movies. There is already evidance that the violence in gameing is not the single most driving facter, and needs other elements to maintain intrest.
if they dont want kids playing violent video games, then come up with something thats entertaining that isint violent. there is no other way. Parents cant hownd there kids 24/7 they can only teach so much, governments can only regulate so much, and without having kids serve prison time for renting legend of zelda I dont think kids will care that much.
Unfortionatly its my personal beleaf that bliss can be found in the middle.
Nice that US have laws that protect the Devil.USA is the least Christian country of them all.GUARDIANS ARE NOT GOOD FOR THEY CHILDRENwhen they allow them violenceTHAT*S WHY you should have laws to protect the innocentnow you don't. Too bad...really Bad...BAD!The Judgement Day is coming...
If you are trying to be funny and/or sarcastic, it didn't come across very well. Just FYI.
It is reassuring to see how the court consistently protects the earnings of the gaming industry - kids can play any game they want and kill each other if they want as long as the game dealer makes its money.
I still don't get it... what is WRONG with kids killing each other in video games? Besides, I don't think that a 14-year-old can be considered a "kid", and they're not allowed to play CoD, because it's 16+.
It is reassuring to see how the court consistently protects the earnings of the gaming industry - kids can play any game they want and kill each other if they want as long as the game dealer makes its money.
And the kid gets the money to pay for it from....
So how long until porn falls under this and kids can buy it? Doesn't that stifle first amendment rights? I guess cigarettes and alcohol are next...
hello and welcome to the internet, you must be new here. as a first time on the internet let me congratulate you on making it this far. to the left you will see porn, to the right you will find local hookers, and please step to the side as to make sure all the kids who got here before you don't run you over on the way to the porn and hookers.
now on a more serious note. cigarettes should be withheld from kids till 18, because some how they get the idea smoking is cool still... i dont understand that one.
alcahol on the other hand, i believe we should follow europans in their way of handling it. as in just let them drink, i think that minimum ages are 12 and such, and drinking is more of a social norm there. go to ANY collage campus, and watch the just turned 21 and never drank befores drink, or the people under 21 who get into those parties. drinking is something you need to learn at an eairlier age than 21. and just because you are 21 DOESN'T MAKE YOU AUTOMATICALLY READY. im 23 and dont/never drank for various reasons, but i could see it in many of my friends, if they were allowed, 7 out of 10 would drink socially till buzzed, two would have drink till hangover, and one would drink till out cold. than again its my opinion based on some amount of logic and looking at other countries and takine ideas that they have that work and incoprerateing it into out own.
It was covered in quite intimate detail in the Canadian national news as well. Frankly I think this justice has common sense and is really in touch with the reality as well as studies.
There hasn't been one conclusive study yet that links violent games with crime exclusively. So until they somehow prove that, I think the restriction advocates should just shut up.
It was covered in quite intimate detail in the Canadian national news as well. Frankly I think this justice has common sense and is really in touch with the reality as well as studies. There hasn't been one conclusive study yet that links violent games with crime exclusively. So until they somehow prove that, I think the restriction advocates should just shut up.
no, they just falsify reports, and have the "do you want to take the risk..." approaches.
than the anti will get their reports (not generally falsified) reports and claim free speach
than the pro will rip their reports up and urinate on them, and kick their crotch saying we know better than you so stfu
at this point government will get involved. p@@# away tax money on experts to review reports and conduct their own, so far all coming back inconclusive.
and the cycle of our freedoms being threatened from with continues. (soul caliber like dialouge went in my head after writing this)
If you believe in free speech go to ground zero and praise the 9/11 bombers and see how far you will get. You will be arrested or worse. So "free speech" doesn't really exist.
Schwarzenegger is right in his use of the word "ultra-violent". It is unacceptable in today's society to see these more and more realistic games where images of humans are annihilated in contrast to the comic book or fairy tale violence.
" ... this country is much more comfortable with children seeing violence than nudity."
This is totally funny. More than 90% of the children would do sex one day but they must never do violenct acts. Right ?
Now the state want not to censor violence but nudity. What a funny idea.
USA has had almost always some strange system
. For me, the video gaming industry is far diffrent from a comic book or a movie. In a game you are the one doing the things, in movies or comics you are an observer.
I would not like my child to play violent games if i ever have one, especially becouse games become more realistic everyday. Well, this world is been going nuts for a while now, so its not that much of a surprise.
USA has had almost always some strange system . For me, the video gaming industry is far diffrent from a comic book or a movie. In a game you are the one doing the things, in movies or comics you are an observer.I would not like my child to play violent games if i ever have one, especially becouse games become more realistic everyday. Well, this world is been going nuts for a while now, so its not that much of a surprise.
Your missing the point. The point is that you have the choice to not allow your child to play those type of games, rather than some stuck up, know-it-all asshole politician/government telling you your child can't play them.
What the hell is wrong with California?
You can smoke weed but you can't play video games?
Also, for the record...
Violent games don't make violent people. I've been playing all the most violent games my whole life. The more controversal and violent, the more I liked. Postal, Grand Theft Auto, Soldier of Fortune and all the most violent games. Today I'm just as passive as I've ever been.
Acutally, violent games can be a means to vent some frustration. (Kinda like punching a pillow, it can help releave some stress to blow off the heads of zombies.)
In what respect: a harmless adult pastime, a harmless child pastime or even both? I might find firing a gun with live rounds at a rusty tin-can a harmless past-time, but would it be wise to let a child do the same?
i know a 12 year old down the road from me who can out shot you in rifles and shotguns.
me and my friends used to shoot bottles tin cans, birds and chipmunks and squirrels with our bb guns when we were 10, when we got to be teens we went on to 1 pump rule bb gun fights with each other. nobody lost an eye or felt more then stinging wrath for injury. we took up paintball by the time is became wide spread and i still play to this day. you have no idea how many kids under 18 are involved in this sport and the youngest player i have ever met/played/coached was 7 we nicknamed him ' killer ' because he could hide behing tree stumps and rocks and every one else was too big to hide behind. his first game all by himself i personally witnessed him shot out 7 very exprienced and decent players in a 350 vs 350 woods ball game on 50 acres.
some people will go to great lengths not to be owned by children.
for every bad kid like billy the kid who killed his first man at 15
there are thousands others who fought and died in the world war 2, world war 1, the american civil war, the american revolution, and so on and so forth all the way back to before the dark ages. with out this simple fact you would never have had a ficticious story by shakespear~romeo and juilet, napolean, hannibal, alexander the great, achilles, ceaser. need i go on?
this is a decision best left to parents judgement, and even then kids don't listen if they don't want to. pawn shops and kids friends don't card.
That's the right train of thought, but lets continue it. So with it illegal, the kid sneaks into the theater, but now the theater is getting fined because a kid snuck in. In fact the punishment becomes so harsh that the theater then stops showing R rated movies less and less often as they cannot afford security. So now the Stuidos cant make money off R rated movies and they stop making R rated movies and move on to just PG-13 flicks.Which is what Leland Yee, D (Really a Democrat, so much for liberal!)- CA, wants for video games. Get the state to hassle retailers so harshly they turn on the developers and get them to censor their own games.
Nice catch there , this is what i have been saying for years.
the first time censorship is allowed , will be the begining of the entire break down of free speech in art. because the censorship WILL affect what kind of "art" is produced.
now chill out on the "ooh democrat= liberal" stuff ,
this is a common mistake that many republicans love about the voting population, and that is that 2/3rds of teh country deosnt realize that liberal/conservative and democrat /republican are two differnt things.
liberalism and conservatism are idealologies , they should NOT be confused with political parties , the democrat in qeustion IS NOT a liberal he is a conservative democrat
there are liberal republicans and there are conservative democrats jsut because some on is a republicaln doesnt mean they have conservative ideals , and nor do all democrats have liberal ideas.
now for the record i'm neither republican or democrat , and i'm a moderate when it comes ot idealogies . i just had to comment on this cos i'm sick and tired of the perpeuation of the idea that these idealogies are found only among this or that political group , because this is NOT the case. the republicans and democrats both play off this misinformation to get votes , conservative dem's use it to grap liberal voter's votes and liberal republicans use it to grap conservative voter's votes.
In what respect: a harmless adult pastime, a harmless child pastime or even both? I might find firing a gun with live rounds at a rusty tin-can a harmless past-time, but would it be wise to let a child do the same?
in texas (and most of the south) kids do this ALL the time , I fired my first gun whan i was 9 (under the supervision of my grandfather of course). and most people who teach thier kids to fire guns , also teach them fire arm saftey, believe it or not most kids are not so stupid they can't grasp fire arm saftey (ie dont have guns laying around loaded , or dont play around with them tor show them off to friends , stuff like that ) also a well locked gun cabinet is a must for those kids that don't pick up on this, persoanlly i never messed witha gun un supervised when i was growing up and i sure as hell didn't try to take them out of my grandfather's locekd gun cabinet by myself. Lastly i'd like to say , comparing a violent video game to shooting areal gun is about teh dumbest f--- thing i ever heard.