June 27, 2011

Supreme Court Rules In Favor of Video Game Industry


In a mile­stone event today, the Supreme Court ruled today against the Vio­lent Video Game law pre­sent­ed by Cal­i­for­nia law mak­ers.
“Like pro­tect­ed books, plays, and movies, com­mu­ni­cate ideas through famil­iar lit­er­ary devices and fea­tures dis­tinc­tive to the medi­um. And ‘the basic prin­ci­ples of free­dom of speech … do not vary’ with a new and dif­fer­ent com­mu­ni­ca­tion medi­um,” said the court.
“This coun­try has no tra­di­tion of spe­cial­ly restrict­ing chil­dren’s access to depic­tions of vio­lence. And Cal­i­for­ni­a’s claim that ‘inter­ac­tive’ video games present spe­cial prob­lems, in that the play­er par­tic­i­pates in the vio­lent action on screen and deter­mines its out- come, is unper­sua­sive.”
This is land­mark event in that it sets a prece­dent for any future enter­tain­ment indus­try laws.  This rul­ing pro­tects video games under first amend­ment rights thus extend­ing them the pro­tect­ing that the Lit­er­a­ture, Music and Video indus­try already have.
“Esthet­ic and moral judg­ments about art  and lit­er­a­ture… are for the indi­vid­ual to make, not for the gov­ern­ment to decree even with man­date or approval of major­i­ty”
While it may be true that chil­dren should not be play­ing Vio­lent or sex­u­al­ly explic­it games it is most defi­nate­ly not the respon­si­bil­i­ty of the courts to decide this.  The respon­si­bil­i­ty of pro­tect­ing chil­dren falls on the hands of their par­ents.  Par­ents and law­mak­ers that are angry with what chil­dren are view­ing should not be tar­get­ing the indus­try but per­haps tar­get­ing them­selves or par­ents of these chil­dren who are fail­ing to pro­tect the chil­dren from such con­tent?
What does TGB think?  Do think the court made the cor­rect deci­sion?  Does any­one here think it should of gone the oth­er way?  Should the gov­ern­ment reg­u­late the video game indus­try?

6 comments

  1. AceOfNades69 - June 27, 2011 2:00 pm

    I find it inter­est­ing that every­one goes after the video game indus­try when it has the same set of rules as movies. If you’re old enough you can buy it, if you’re not be with a par­ent or guardian. Retail­ers enforce this rule and par­ents try to reg­u­late what their child is exposed to. Are par­ents going to get mad at the movie indus­try if their kid sees a vio­lent rat­ed R movie?

    Reply
  2. CharcoalCoyote - June 27, 2011 3:29 pm

    I start­ed to write a reply to this, but I felt it was drift­ing too far off top­ic, so I’ll make it its own arti­cle. Hooray for good judge­ment on the part of the Supreme Court!

    Reply
  3. zero_19 - June 27, 2011 4:24 pm

    I’ve said it before, I’ll say it again. My daugh­ter will play the games that I approve of her play­ing at what­ev­er age she may be at the time.
    It is up to me to make those judge­ment calls and I applaud the Supreme Court for see­ing that.

    Reply
  4. CharcoalCoyote - June 27, 2011 4:43 pm

    I’m teach­ing my lit­tle sis­ter to play League of Leg­ends. It’s free, fair­ly easy to learn, pret­ty com­pet­i­tive, and incred­i­bly safe. I’m doing this par­tial­ly to intro­duce her to the inter­net and gam­ing world, and par­tial­ly so we can have some­thing to do togeth­er when I go off to col­lege. The chat fil­ter in LoL is prac­ti­cal­ly use­less, but she goes to a pub­lic, under­fund­ed city school in a small town in North Car­oli­na; there are none of those words that she does­n’t already know.

    Reply
  5. PimpmasterF - June 28, 2011 12:44 am

    I got­ta agree with the supreme court here. Par­ents need to step up and quite rely­ing on every­one else to do their job, be respon­si­ble and know what your kid is into and con­trol such con­tent accord­ing­ly. I do how­ev­er feel that com­pa­nies should be able to enforce poli­cies that pro­hib­it minors from pur­chas­ing explic­it games, but unfor­tu­nate­ly that still comes down to con­sti­tu­tion­al rights vio­la­tions. But bot­tom line is at the end of the day the par­ent is respon­si­ble for what their child is exposed to in their home.

    Reply
  6. ScrotusKilmystr - June 30, 2011 3:35 pm

    It’s just intrest­ing that if you add “social­ized” peo­ple will pull out the guns and be ready for war BUT when it comes to Free­dom of speech well we can let the gov­er­ment decide what we say, think, see, feel.… ugh
    Any­way I total­ly agree with the Supreme Courts’ deci­sion 100% time for par­ents to step up and get involved their fam­i­lies lives and quit expect­ing the gov­er­ment to do it for them! Free­dom is a priv­il­gee that comes with a price we can­not pick and choose what we wnat to have the free­dom to do.… all or none
    haaaa much bet­ter now rant over while wav­ing my amer­i­can flag surf­ing “med­ical ref­er­ence mate­r­i­al” and play­ing duke nukem on-line

    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