Slashdot Mirror
US Supreme Court: Video Games Qualify For First Amendment
Wrath0fb0b writes "The United States Supreme Court threw out a California law prohibiting the sale of violent video games to minors. Notable in the opinion is a historical review of the condemnation of "unworthy" material that would tend to corrupt children, starting with penny-novels and up through comic books and music lyrics. The opinion is also notable for the odd lineup of Justices that defies normal ideological lines, with one conservative and one liberal jurist dissenting on entirely different grounds. In the process, they continue the broad rule that the First Amendment does not vary with the technological means used: 'Video games qualify for First Amendment protection. Like protected books, plays, and movies, they 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.'"
Let me just say; Hear hear! Well done Supreme Court.
Our rights (ALL of them) are not to be given away to petty tyrants for any reason, even "For the Children".
Official Heretic from the "Church of Global Warming". Proven right thanks to whistle blowers. AGW = Flat Earth Theory
He whooshed so hard, my house almost collapsed.
Didn't see that coming.
The court said that parents should filter what their children see and do. Score one against the nanny state monitoring us for our own good.
Agile Artisans
Very true ... in my lifetime, the most notable example of this was when Tipper Gore was trying to get a bunch of music banned. This, of course, led to Dee Schneider in the most ball-hugging jeans you could imagine testifying about why what she was proposing was just plain wrong.
Everyone wraps themselves in the flag, and talks about freedom, but often they only mean for people who they agree with. You can't have free speech if you don't support the right of people to say offensive things just because you'd rather not hear it (or because you think it's causing out moral decay).
It's amazing how vocal people can be about making sure that the rights of other people are limited so as not to offend their own sensibilities.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
Only Thomas and Breyer dissented; one of the most conservative, and one of the most liberal.
Reality has a liberal bias
" JUSTICE THOMAS, dissenting.
The Court’s decision today does not comport with the original public understanding of the First Amendment. The majority strikes down, as facially unconstitutional, a state law that prohibits the direct sale or rental of certain video games to minors because the law “abridg[es] the freedom of speech.” U. S. Const., Amdt. 1. But I do not think the First Amendment stretches that far.
The practices and beliefs of the founding generation establish that “the freedom of speech,” as originally understood, does not include a right to speak to minors (or a right of minors to access speech) without going through the minors’ parents or guardians. I would hold that the law at issue is not facially unconstitutional under the First Amendment, and reverse and remand for further proceedings."
Justice Thomas should, perhaps, stop to consider that the "practices and beliefs of the founding generation" establish a number of other interesting boundaries to the distribution of various freedoms...
Kids can't buy porn.
Kids can't see R-rated movies.
Kids shouldn't be able to buy violent video games.
As a life long gamer I see absolutely no problem with restricting sales of games with violence or sex to adults only.
What's the point of challenging that? Do we want 8-year olds to save their lunch money and play Grand Theft Auto?
First, there's two different issues here ... porn vs. violence. The courts have long established that porn is considered obscenity, and therefore, does not qualify under the First Amendment. They've never said the same thing about violence, which they're re-affirming here. (Although, I wasn't sure if they were saying that animal cruelty was or wasn't considered obscene)
In the case of kids seeing R-rated movies -- it's not illegal. It's the movie producers an theatres acting as a group to set standards, but it's *not* the law.
Likewise, the video game producers could voluntarily rate their games (and many do), but as people's experience may vary depending on how you play the game, they're notoriously difficult. And the ratings only serve as a recommendation system for the purchaser, unless the retailer makes it their policy to not sell items with stronger categories of markings to children. ...
And oddly enough, for some of my formative years, I lived in Europe ... where they were much more accepting of the naked human body (not porn, just nakedness), but that violence was to be avoided. The A-Team was considered violent, but there was nothing wrong with naked people in toilet paper commercials.
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
Can you cite your references? There was a recent study that said the complete opposite of what you are claiming. http://www.pbs.org/kcts/videogamerevolution/impact/myths.html /.
I believe it was even posted here on
Keep the old wives' tales to yourself.
If you are going to condemn any society with even modest morals legislation (excluding major things like murder) as tantamount to slavery, there has never been a free people ever.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
Except that material can and is still deemed "obscene" and banned for children, typically due to sexual content. What sort of country do we live in where gratuitous ultraviolence is OK but procreation is still taboo? All this talk about how important first amendment protections are for violence but heaven help the children if they see somebody's ding dong! Don't get me wrong, I'm opposed to censorship. I just wanted to point out the hypocrisy.
-73, de n1ywb
www.n1ywb.com
The people who failed that test should be... Kicked from the #law_of_the_land chat channel as an obvious bot. Think of it as a human rights Turing Test.
Welcome to the Panopticon. Used to be a prison, now it's your home.
The answer to that is easy, if unpopular:
Your "right to live" exists solely by your ability to defend it.
You have the same "right to live" as anybody or anything else, which is none.
We live in a civilized society, where we have negotiated out most of the anarchist might-makes-right tendencies of our forefathers, but you walk down the wrong dark alley on the wrong night and those negotiations mean jack squat.
so, to answer your two riddles, the vampire and the renal patient have absolutely no right at all to your blood/organs, nor do they have a "right" to continue living either, but they certainly might make the attempt to continue living at your expense, hopefully (well, from your PoV anyway) you can stop them.
I'm sorry. I see this all the time on Slashdot.
Just because they have a legal reasoning disagreement doesn't mean someone is bought and paid for.
Hey, Ginsburg supports abortion rights. She must be bought and paid for by the abortion lobby. Or she may just support that there is a legal right to have an abortion.
Except for ending slavery, the Nazis, communism, & securing American independence, war has never solved anything.
I disagree with that thesis entirely.
Their right to live does not mean in any way that I'm required to surrender mine. Just because you might need an organ donation, doesn't confer an obligation upon me to give it to you. The same as the "right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness" doesn't actually guarantee you a job or to be happy ... merely the right to look for it.
Because, as soon as you start doing the calculus of whose life is more valuable ... you start using the poor as spare parts for the rich.
In my opinion, both of your examples are nonsensical and contrived. That isn't about 'offending someone else's sensibilities' .... it's about making your own rights inferior to that of someone else. I don't see any ambiguity in where to draw the line you seem to think is a broad and fuzzy expanse ... your rights can't extend past the security of my own person.
Lost at C:>. Found at C.
You gotta love supreme court opinion that reference both Lord of the Flies:
...and 'Pick a Path' / 'Choose Your Own Adventure' type books:
And understands the difference between causation and correlation:
Build it, and they will come^Hplain.
> we non-puritans just won a 7-2 victory
Sort of, yes. This is how everyone expected the case to come out, because it's really hard to convince nine intelligent people whose brilliant and successful clerks grew up playing mortal kombat that violent video games mess kids up... and it's doubly hard to do so without somehow implying that the government can ban books.
Does anybody know of any really good studies on the subject of violent video games? (Something that actually has a control group, for example?)
-- IANAL, this isn't legal advice, and definitely isn't legal advice for you. Also, Squee!
You're always limiting the rights of other people, including their right to live, by asserting your rights. The problem is where to draw the line.
For a country based on certain inalienable rights, Americans sure don't understand the concept very well. While there are some exceptions, for the common good (such as not yelling "fire" in a crowded theater) If someone is able to limit your right by asserting theirs, then you didn't have a right in the first place. The reason they are called inalienable or basic human rights is because they cannot be reduced by others (without violating said right).
So, in the United States, there is a current trend to ban smoking in public places. Why? Because all people have a right to breathe clean air (as clean as it may or may not be). Smokers on the other hand complain about their right to smoke, but there is no such right. I guess one could try and argue that smoking is a form of expression and therefore falls under the first amendment, but I doubt that would be successful.
Some rights are granted solely by the state and can indeed be forfeited by the individual, like if you are convicted of a felony, your right to vote is forfeit. That isn't another imposing their right on you, but a consequence of an action taken by you. However state granted rights are not the same as basic or inalienable rights. In the United States, the constitution grants the right to free speech. In reality, that right exists with or without the constitution. If it didn't, then the founders would not have had the "right" to declare independence. The constitution doesn't create the right, but codifies it, instead. That is an inalienable basic right. The right to vote is not the same type of right. The State dictates who may or may not vote and how it is to be done. The actual right, however, is for self determination and is exemplified by the notion to vote for one's political leaders. Not all societies allow voting for their leaders or at least not in the same way as the US, but all peoples are entitled to the right of self determination.
You mention a vampire and hunger in your post, although a bad example as the situation is impossible. However, use the example of the individual who needs an expensive medicine or they will die. They are poor and can't afford it. That does not give them the "right" to break into the pharmacy and steal it (thus impinging on the right of the pharmacist to his/her property). There may be a moral question involved, but that does not make it a "right."
People would be better served if they understood what is actually a right, and what their actual rights were. It would clear up a lot of the rhetoric in political campaigns and in general public discourse.
There are quite a few differences, actually. First and foremost, to restrict any speech, the government must be able to show the court that the speech in question would "surely result in immediate, direct, and irreparable damage to the nation and its people". The accepted argument is that grossly obscene pornography causes harm to the viewer and also to the moral fabric of the nation. Once you have established this, it's easier to also say that since children are not adults, that the threshold for "obscenity" might be lower, and therefore that things not considered obscene to sell to an adult are still obscene to sell to a minor. On the other hand, there is no law restricting violent media for sale to adults, so the government of California was required to pass a much harder test, which they did not. Without showing this, there are no grounds by which the sale can be restricted. The relevant quote is "...California’s Act does not adjust the boundaries of an existing category of unprotected speech to ensure that a definition designed for adults is not uncritically applied to children." That is to say that since "depictions of violence" is not an existing category of speech that is held to be unprotected when it reaches a certain threshold, that the law must pass very strict guidelines. As opposed to a law that took existing "bar" that must be passed, and lowered it when applied to minors instead of adults.
The second difference is basically an appeal to tradition. Pornography has long been restricted. Violent entertainment has not been. Appeal to tradition is not typically a valid argument. But in this case it is. If violent media was so harmful, surely somebody would have done something about it. So since California has long objected to restricting violent movies from sale to minors, they are in a tight spot with regards to videogames. Along the lines of the first, they must not only show that some violent things are clearly and surely harmful to children, they must also show that this harm is specific to videogames, since the law is singling those out. That is, since they are not banning movies or books, they must show that this harm is not caused by movies or books. On the other hand, pornography laws do not single out the medium, so this is again a different argument.
Going back to the first point, though: Pornography is broadly illegal depending on the judge you get. The law bans depictions of sexual activities that have no artistic, literary, or scientific merit. All of those things are entirely up to the judge to decide, and the hokey plot-line used to guide actors from fuck to fuck is not easy to argue as artistic or literary ;) Typically most states leave most porn alone, although people can and do get thrown in jail for a long LONG time for making porn that involves pissing. Rape fantasy porn is another one that can get you locked up for 10+ years. But a lot of states will even go after oral and anal sex. In fact, I think about 23 or so states ban oral and anal sex across the board, not just in porn! And if you think that would be unconstitutional, you're dead wrong. The Supreme Court has in fact upheld bans on consensual oral or anal sex, in private, even between a married couple. Prosecutions are rare against straight couples, but happen to gay men from time to time. Usually for being caught in public bathrooms, but at least a few times police have kicked down the door of a suspected homosexual, caught him in the act, and arrested both men. These warrant-less break-ins are upheld because the police argue they received a 911 call and got the wrong street address, and so had a good-faith reason to be there. Texas had its law struck down by the Supreme Court, but only because it discriminated against gays exclusively. Rick Santorum made his name (or at least, he made his mean mean the frothy mix of lube and semen that results from unprotected anal) as the guyl fighting tooth and nail (his words, even) to uphold this law. Other states that
ASCII stupid question, get a stupid ANSI
Tornadoes aren't drawn to trailer parks. Smaller, more common tornadoes are just sufficiently powerful to do substantial damage in a trailer park, because trailer parks are fragile compared to houses / business districts.
"Who is the Journal of Quantum Physics going to believe?" --Stephen Hawking
You're always limiting the rights of other people, including their right to live, by asserting your rights. The problem is where to draw the line.
There is a difference between a right and an entitlement. A person has a right to their own kidney. They aren't entitled to anyone else's kidney. Sure, there are contrived cases where the distinction is blurred, but with consistent definitions, that doesn't occur much.
There is a lot of confusion over rights, and many lists of 'rights' contain entries that are in no way rights. Medical care, for instance, isn't a right. Calling it a right is as nonsensical as calling a book a song. It is an entitlement. Maybe it's a good entitlement, worth having in law... but to call it a right is an indication of muddled thinking.
A vampire has a right to seek blood, but no right to take blood from anyone. The first is a freedom, the second is a theft.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but it wasn't about banning music it was about assigning movie-like ratings to music that would require the same kinds of parental supervision on purchase as an R-rated movie.
Except it was an attempt to give those ratings the weight of law. Movie ratings have no legal standing. Any attempt by congress to require ratings on movies would fail for the same reason it failed for music.
As a side-note: Remember books? Barnes & Noble has more violence and sexual content than any video rental store. Underage sex, even. Where are the ratings on books? A fifteen-year old can legally purchase "Silence of the Lambs", or even "The Bible". Where's the outrage?
I don't recall being present at these negotiations. Yet somehow, I am not exempt from them. This passes for "civilized society" by today's standards, but I don't think it's all that great. And I don't think the police could stop someone from killing you any better than you can yourself. They provide "justice" afterward.