November 3, 2010

Supreme Court Split on California Video Game Law


The Supreme Court appears to be split on the Cal­i­for­nia Videogame law that for­bids the sale of game to chil­dren under 18 that depict scenes of gra­tu­itous vio­lence, sex and tor­ture. 
““Why isn’t it com­mon sense,” said Jus­tice Stephen G. Brey­er, that if the law can for­bid sell­ing pic­tures of a “naked woman” to a young teen, it can also for­bid the sale of scenes “of gra­tu­itous tor­ture of chil­dren” in a video game?
 Chief Jus­tice John G. Roberts Jr. agreed, cit­ing scenes from the game Postal 2 in which girls are smashed in the face with a shov­el and their bod­ies set on fire.
“We don’t have a tra­di­tion in this coun­try” of expos­ing chil­dren to that kind of graph­ic vio­lence, he said. But in a case that seemed to break the usu­al lib­er­al-con­ser­v­a­tive alliances, Jus­tice Antonin Scaliaclashed with Roberts and Brey­er and argued that the 1st Amend­men­t’s pro­tec­tion for free­dom of speech has nev­er been applied to restrict vio­lence in the media. 
“The same argu­ment could have been made when movies came out that expos­ing chil­dren to vio­lence would harm them”, he told a lawyer for Cal­i­for­nia.”
This case has been cir­cling around Wash­ing­ton for some time now.  This case, in my opin­ion, rep­re­sents a huge land mark in free speech.  I should state that I think it is very impor­tant to shel­ter our chil­dren from this type of mate­r­i­al.  I don’t think 0 ‑16 year old should be exposed to extreme amounts of gore, sex and vio­lence.  How­ev­er, I believe that it is the respon­si­bil­i­ty of the par­ents to make sure their chil­dren are pro­tect­ed from this NOT the gov­ern­ments.   This case most like­ly won’t be decid­ed for anoth­er cou­ple of months. 
What do you guys think?  Do you think it is the gov­ern­ments respon­si­bil­i­ty to step in where par­ents are obvi­ous­ly fail­ing?  Is it the gov­ern­ments right? 
Quotes tak­en from LA Times.

4 comments

  1. T8 - November 8, 2010 9:20 am

    the gov­ern­ment should nev­er step in for the lack of prop­er par­ent­ing. My chil­dren will play what video games I WANT them to play when I WANT them to play. If the gov­ern­ment steps in, its just anoth­er instance where par­ents give over anoth­er one of their rights because they dont want to have to raise their own chil­dren.

    Reply
  2. zero_19 - November 11, 2010 8:17 am

    As a father, I agree with T8. My chil­dren will play the games that I buy for them when I feel they are ready/mature enough for the “next lev­el”.

    Reply
  3. thsoundman - November 11, 2010 3:09 pm

    I don’t under­stand why par­en­t’s have such a hard time say­ing no to their chil­dren. It just seems like so many go to great lengths to nev­er say no to them. My father said no to me all of the time and I sure as hell did­n’t throw a fit. I’d been stu­pid as shit to back­talk my old man or my moth­er for that mat­ter just because they told me I could­n’t have some­thing. You are sup­posed to be a par­ent first and friend sec­ond… not the oth­er way around. But what do I know… I was only a kid once and I’m not a par­ent.

    Reply
  4. ScrotusKilmystr - November 11, 2010 3:18 pm

    This is the same argu­ment that’s been going on for each gen­er­a­tion from the 50’s till now. It’s the same debate “we have to pro­tect the chil­dren!” with the ESRB and parental con­trols on every con­sole on the mar­ket, even soft­ware for PC’s that con restrict what it loaded/played/viewed is avaible par­ents just have to GET INVOLVED in their kids lives!
    I’m in the retail end of the indus­try and telling par­ents why the game is rat­ed does­n’t make a dif­fer­ance 9 out 10 times they will still buy it. This whole issue is just tired and played out for votes!

    Reply

Have your say

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Archives - Powered by WordPress - A theme by cssigniter.com