Games win First Amendment protection in US
Supreme Court rules against law governing sales of games to minors
Today the Supreme Court ruled on the Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association case, securing games the same rights as afforded to books and films.
The Justices today voted 7-2 in favour of the Entertainment Merchant's Association, and against reinstating the 2005 law that banned the sale of violent video games to minors, introduced labelling laws for packaging and saw retailers facing fines of up to $1000 for failing to follow the regulations.
"This country has no tradition of specifically restricting children's access to depictions of violence," read the full ruling. "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 outcome, is unpersuasive."
Developers reacted with pleasure to the ruling. "Important day for gaming, gamers and freedom of expression," tweeted Bioshock creator Ken Levine. "Supreme Court does the right thing. Fist bumps to the 7, WTFs to the 2."
The ruling can be found in full here.
Looks like sense is returning to the world.
I also think that by not blocking the sale, every time a game with adult content come out, we have to hear US politicians moan about the effect of it on minors, without a convincing argument that it's not for kids.
What I do find sickening is that Arnold "Total Recall/Preditor/Terminator" Swartzenneger tried to pass the law for games, whilst ignoring the violent films that he got rich off, and whose industry his friends are involved in.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by David Amirian on 27th June 2011 7:54pm
It is not bad to stop an 8-year-old from playing Manhunt, but that is a decision for parents to make. Or should be, whether many choose to become informed or to remain ignorant is their responsibility.
I played Double Dragon when I was 10 using bats and whips against women, throwing dynamite at other male thugs, but I never went out with a Louisville slugger and started beating down on people. Ultimately, it comes down to the individual playing the games and the parents.
Personally, Halo being M rated is a joke to me. Blasting aliens into goo was Space Invaders, sure Halo is far more advanced in graphics, structure, etc., but it remains a bullet avatar blasting aliens. Movies Men in Black and Independence Day are PG-13 rated. Do I really worry a 14, 15 or legally driving on their own to GameStop 16-year-old can't handle Halo? No.
It's absurd to know a 16-year-old can drive 100km an hour on a highway, work in food preparation, read and and watch about wars including photos and videos of the holocaust, the World Trade Center attacks and countless other atrocities, and talk on these subjects - but he or she can't buy Halo.
@Barrie, pretty much agree with everything you said there.
I am sure the court wanted no part in deciding the slippery slope from here to the end of time on what is too offensive or just right every time somebody had an issue with some speech. Whether that is from people who claim Harry Potter is anti-christian, Speedy Gonzalez is racist or games too violent, etc.
Also, an 8-year-old buying Manhunt should not happen, businesses will keep that as a rule not to sell to under aged kids, but how does an 8-year-old get $60 and to the store and get a copy of Manhunt in his or her hands?
Instead of fixing the problem and placing the blame on bad parenting, IE themselves, they have to find the next most convenient target. Grow up guys! Don't hate the game, hate the plairs parents!
To the 7, you know what's up. To the 2, DON'T BREED!!!
That's my rantings.
Imsurprised you read all of this. =o)
Is it REALLY bad to stop a minor buying Manhunt 2?
It is bad to mandate something that the industry had already self-policed. It is also bad to add criminal charges and fines to failures of regulation.
It's not just about keeping a kid from buying Manhunt 2. It's about not allowing government to choose what can and cannot be censored. The reason prior efforts to censor speech have failed is because we have a foundation that allows free speech, virtually unabated, and it is a just one. If anything, prior exceptions - even narrow ones - such as the Ginsberg ruling have been used as fodder by special interest groups to try to justify further censorship that only furthers their own narrow-minded desires. Justice Scalia said it best in his opinion: the mere fact that Justice Scalia felt that a narrower view of the California bill would pass review because of the visceral images shown in debates about this only proves that we cannot allow subjective views on what is and isn't acceptable. Those of us who feel Duke Nukem is terrible and should be banned should not be allowed to keep it from the people that think it's just fine, and before you say "that's not what this specific law was about", remember that American law is heavily based around precedent. The slippery slope argument is definitely relevant here.
I notice the Europeans, who don't necessarily have the freedom of speech, are conditioned into believing that having their government telling them in some ways what they can and cannot do with their lives, even if it hurts no one, is acceptable because the ends justify the means. I, an American, am conditioned into believing that my right to make my own independent decisions trumps the "right" of anyone telling me what I am allowed to say or do. It's a difference in upbringing, and I'm noticing it playing out here.
So... I guess the only option now for conservative parents is to... parent their children.
The US systems are very different than those in Europe.
Here in Europe you can legally prevent sales of verious items to people under a set age without restricting access to the content.
In the US however this law would have restricted access to the content because it was deemed by goverment to be not suitable and this is the crux of the issue.
Anyway like here in Europe, whats to stop the parents or another adult buying the game anyway?
As it stands, stores including Walmart already have company policies to ID people when buying games. I have seen walmart employees refuse to sell a game to someone as they where too young to buy it.
This law was a bad bad law, and went beyond trying to prevent children buying the games and this is why people are glad its been overturned and that games now have the first amendment protection.
And I don't see anything bad in allowing kids to play 18+ games. I mean, I played Dino Crisis and Resident Evils when I was a kid (7+), and I don't even bite people that often. Anymore.
Edited 1 times. Last edit by Jaakko Heinonen on 28th June 2011 2:12pm