Video Games Not Protected Form of Speech

E-Rock writes "Video Games are lumped with child porn as unprotected forms of speech. "A federal judge said local governments can limit children's access to violent or sexually explicit video games, saying games are not constitutionally protected forms of speech." Story with limited details at Nando."

Comments

some times i get so angry about this....

[sniepre]

I hate seeing when a judge feels he has to play daddy for the civilians..... Guess what? The children under 17 already HAVE parents, and its THEIR jobs to see to the monitoring of their video games and television and reading habits. If the child *didn't* have parents to watch over them, i can assure you that most likely the child is seeing far worse things in their life than GTA3.

Yes, our government is supposed to protect us, its citizens.. But everyone i talk to agrees with me that micromanagement in a corporate environment sucks, isnt this just micromanagement from the government into a family unit?

Re:some times i get so angry about this....

[Anixamander]

While I tend to think the judge ruled on the wrong grounds on this one, I personally have no problem with limiting the access of video games to minors. Everyone likes to trot out the argument that it is the parents' responsibility, but that only works to a certain degree. A parent cannot, and should not, be around their child 100% of the time. There should be times when the child can be with their friends without parental supervision. And when that happens, I see no problem if the parent gets a little assistance from retailers who won't sell overly violent video games, or porn, or beer or cigarettes to their children. The movie rating system seems to work well, and there is no reason the video game ratings should not work the same way. And just as with a movie, if the parent wants their child to be exposed to the video games, they can buy it for them. This is not an issue of asking retailers to do the parenting. It may be a little bit of assistance, but I see no reason why this is patently wrong.

Re:some times i get so angry about this....

[sniepre]

"A parent cannot, and should not, be around their child 100% of the time. There should be times when the child can be with their friends without parental supervision."

My only thought at this point is, who should set the rules on what is acceptable and unacceptable for a developing child to see? I'm not talking about ages 8-12 or whatever.. but mid to late teens... are growing constantly at that age...

Sometimes, letting them discover some parts of the real world is necessary. You and I both know what a gun can do, and I think it can sometimes backfire keeping a devloping teen locked away from being able to experience certain elements of the real world.

Surely, a parent would tell their children what is right, and what is wrong. So, after the child was raised properly with the knowledge of right and wrong, if they desire to go learn of the *real world* i dont think there should be a magic cut off at 17-18 when they are then declared arbitrarily to be "mature enough" to be exposed to it all at once.

Its just a part of growing up, IMHO.

Re:some times i get so angry about this....

[Bagheera]

I have to ask "are you a parent?"

We agreee that the judge botched the ruling, and I agree completely that I don't need to be, nor should I be, around my kid 24x7 to make sure she stays out of trouble, but it's not the government's place to do my job for me.

The point here, as others have mentioned, is one of micromanagement. If I don't want my kid playing violent video games (or smoking, or watching R-Rated movies), I tell her not to and, if I've done my job as a parent, she won't. Same goes for drugs, pr0n, teen sex, etc. Yes, there are some cases (ethanol, cigarettes) where there are proven harmful consequences where I don't mind their intervention, but there is no proof whatsoever that video games are going to hurt anything but the kid's thumb muscles.

The movie ratings are, in many respects, a farce. The whole concept of strictly "age dependent" ratings is inane. Yes, it's convenient and there is some justification for it (statistical averages) but there is no mystical transition in head space when someone turns 17,18,21 that makes them suddenly able to understand things they couldn't understand the day before - or take responsibility for same.

All the ordnance does is put additional burdens on retailers with no real benefit to the people it's trying to protect. THAT is what is patently wrong about it.

Re:some times i get so angry about this....

[Happy Monkey]

Can you imagine how much MORE trouble I would have got myself into if these things were LEGAL?

None. It would have been legal.

Re:some times i get so angry about this....

[TGK]

So I'm going to have to point this out... it's probably said elsewhere, but it needs to be said here too.

Many things are protected speech. Porn (for the most part) is protected.... at least insofar as the Court has refused to define obsenity in any real meaningfull sence. Justice Stone once said "I'll know obsenity when I see it" which more or less sums up our Judicial System's take on the issue.

That said there is a difference between what is protected and what is freely available. Playboy's pictures (nudes) are protected speach, but you can't buy a Playboy until you're 18.

Printing something is direct speech. It's a form of expression.

Buying something is indirect speech. Voting with your wallet if you will.

In order for Congress to restrict what you have the right to buy it must restrict your right to indirect speech. The Court (not court) has a test for this. It is known as the "compelling state interest test." The upshot of this is that the State must prove that it has a compelling reason to restrict this speech. If no such reason is proven the challenge fails and the law is overturned. It is one of the few cases wherein the DEFENDENT has the burden of proof (assuming the state is being sued for restricting my freedom of speech).

I want to make this clear because of the misleading nature of the title. A decision which limits what I can buy does not in any way make a ruling as to weather video games are or are not free speech. It simply states that a judge thought that the Government has a compelling reason to limit who can buy what.

That being said, the normitive upshot of all this is fairly simple. If a parrent wants their kid to play this game they can buy it for them. The force of law only prevents a child from going behind a parrents back and buying the game himself. There is little danger of some sort of governmental intrusion into anyone's life considering the allready curtailed freedoms allowed to minors in this country.

Why should games be any different from movies?

[Mr. Neutron]

In most places in the U.S., if you are under 17, you can't get into R-rated movies without an adult. If you are under 18, you can't buy a porn mag.

Why is that *any* different from restricting minors' access to certain video games? If society is going to allow freedom of expression in the content of games, it also has the responsibility of protecting vulnerable children from potentially harmful content. With freedom comes responsibility.

Parents, at home, they can let their kids play whatever games they want, or watch whatever movies, or look at whatever magazines. But in public space, there is a certain generally accepted level of protection for children that applies to all of these.

The judge saw the wrong games...

[Steveftoth]

---Begin Quote
Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found "no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech. The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."
---End quote

This guy didn't try and play and of the final fantasy games. All those games push a fairly similar agenda of machine == bad and protect the earth. Or MGS, if you don't think that killing is wrong after playing MGS, then you didn't watch the cut scenes ( that games lives in contridiction, because it preaches that violence and killing are wrong, but the only way to beat it is to be involved with killing people ).

If he was only playing MK4, SFXXXSuperCapcomMarvelFighterTurboMegaAlphaSpecial Edition aand racing games then yeah, I can see his point. But even shoot em up games like Time Crisis or Slient Scope have anti-terrorist agendas. Just like many (crappy) HollyWood movies.

I feel that most games released today resemble the HollyWood schlock rather then the artistic projects that get produced. More like Scorpion King rather then say Pi. For every artistic game like MYST, there are a hundred shoot-em-up death game 2000 knock offs.

The guy only saw 4 games, I bet that if you showed certain movies to a judge who had never seen movies before you could get the same verdict, that movies have no artistic merit as well.

Re:Simple question

[prizog]

Um. "the left"? I don't think it's censorship is a uniquely left-wing (or uniquely right-wing) phenomenon. Sure, lots of Democrats support these laws, but plenty of Republicans do too. And it's been a long time since the Democrats have represented the left anyway.

MPAA Film ratings not a "law"

[VValdo]

As I understand it, the restriction on 17 and under going into an R-rated film is not a "law" passed by government but rather an agreement within the entertainment industry to self-police itself.

Specifically, the MPAA rates the film (their methodology is as controversial as the ratings system in general) and the exhibitors (that is, the movie theaters) agree to restrict ticket sales in accordance with the MPAA ratings.

The MPAA ratings are also used to determine when advertisements for movies are permitted-- that's why you don't see ads for R-rated movies during hours when kids are watching TV. Or at least that's the idea-- there was a scandal about a year ago where a lot of R-rated films was being advertised to children on TV.

Apparently, the film company's defense was that ad-purchasing time packages did not match the resolution of the MPAA ratings system-- so there was no way to buy advertising time in slots that exactly matched the demographics of the ratings. (And I'm sure the fact that most theaters weren't checking IDs made the spillover ok too)

I think (but I'm not sure) that blockbuster and other video rental places also check IDs just as theaters do. But I wonder if they care about video games... anyone know?

W

Re:Simple question

[Elwood P Dowd]

The left? The left used to be all about personal freedoms. Remember hippies?

Besides, conservatives need to divorce the religious right before they can claim that they stand for personal freedoms at all.

What about Choose-Your-Own-Adventures?

[LionKimbro]

Start with a book. Turn it into a choose your own adventure. Protected?

Now make it a little more sophisticated; Something like "Grail Quest". It has the player keep track of things like inventory and health and armor, but is still a choose-your-own adventure. Protected?

Okay, now lets take the SAME exact thing, but have a computer do the book keeping for the player. Protected?

Now lets make it a little more sophisticated, but still wordy, like Zork. Protected?

Replace wordy imagery with the occasional ASCII graphic. Protected?

Give the user a map, like in Zork Zero (if I recall correctly). Protected?

Use the map primarily, and the text secondarily, like in NetHack. Protected?

Apply better graphics, like the graphic ports of NetHack. Protected?

Give the user a first person perspective in the maze, Ultima Underworld or something like that. Protected?

It is a SMOOTH continuum from books to games. I can take any game, and gradually transform it into a book, and any book and gradually transform it into a game.

Give me any two expressions, one slightly more interactive than the other, and I can construct an expression in between.

Re:which four?

[Bonker]

Sayeth the article:

Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found "no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech. The court finds that video games have more in common with board games and sports than they do with motion pictures."

Four games. Four fucking games. Out of a entire fucking INDUSTRY, this asshole reviews four games. This is like reveiwing 'Ishtar', 'Waterworld', 'Howard the Duck', and 'Glitter' and then saying that all American movies suck.

I can list four games off the top of my *head* that have more speech and artistic values than all four of those movies I just mentioned put together.

'Black and White' - Morality play, pure and simple. What's the difference between right and wrong?

'Max Payne' - Dark Psychological Thriller with some gritty 3PS thrown in for taste.

'Starcraft' - Betrayal, Greed, and Cosmic justice carried out against a RTS background.

'Diablo II' - Relgion versus damnation. Hell, most RPG's have storylines. Some are better some are worse. What if the plotline of a RPG was that I was a judge trying to stamp out virtual kiddie porn?

Four fucking games. Gimme a break.

Re:Don't they do this already?

[lamont116]

Are pornos illegal? No. Limiting certain games to adults only won't result in them becoming illegal, just as limiting some movies to adults hasn't made those movies illegal.

I only read the Nando article, so it may have garbled the issues, but if something is not "protected speech," it can be banned. It strikes me that a better (and narrower) rationale for upholding the statute is that the games at issue fall into the category of "indecent" speech (think George Carlin's Seven Dirty Words bit), which can be regulated so as to prevent accidental access by children, but not banned outright.

The quotation in the article suggests that this particular judge doesn't think that the games qualify as "speech" at all, which sounds sort of ridiculous, but it may have been taken out of context.

Anyone have a link to the text of the decision?

Re:which four?

[Rayonic]

> I can list four games off the top of my *head* that have more speech and artistic values than all four of those movies I just mentioned put together.

Not a bad list, but I can do one (or four) better.

The Longest Journey - Adventure games are really the closest thing you can get to a movie in a game. TLJ is one of the best to come out recently, though it was a toss-up between this and Grim Fandango.

Zork - It's almost like reading! Surely even he can get that through his thick skull.

Deus Ex - One of the more literate FPSes. You've got to throw an action one in there.

Tetris - Hey, if we can get him hooked maybe he'll see things in a different light. ;-)

This is, of course, ignoring the fact that he has NO PLACE JUDGING WHAT IS SPEECH AND WHAT ISN'T . But if he was a good judge I guess he'd know that already.

Re:So, name four games that *do* meet the standard

[kindbud]

Four games that are equivalent to literature:

• The 7th Guest
  
• Myst
  
• Secret of Monkey Island
  
• Oddworld
  

Having named some games in this genre, I think anyone else can recall several more advernture games that are essentially an interactive novel.