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

This ruling is troubling, the original law wasn't

[Mantrid]

The original law that was to be simply limited underage children:

"The ordinance, passed in 2000, would require children under 17 to have parental consent before they can buy violent or sexually explicit video games or play similar arcade games. "
(from the article)

I don't see anything wrong with this; it's the same way with movies in many places.

The problem is, of course, that once video games aren't protected as free speech, that they can start cracking down on whatever they feel like cracking down on.

Better protect your copies of GTA3!

How is that possible?

[seldolivaw]

If (at least in some states) source code is free speech, and games are just the result of that code, I don't see how this is going to hold up under appeal. IANAL (obviously).

choice bit

[startled]

"Limbaugh said he reviewed four different video games and found 'no conveyance of ideas, expression, or anything else that could possibly amount to speech.'"

Well, then, that's settled. I agree with the "four items, one judge" standard. Next up: books! Find four books, and a judge who thinks those four are devoid of substance, and I think we can all agree we can rightfully declare that at that point, books would become "non-speech".

After books, of course, the next thing to lose its speech status should be speeches!