Slashdot Mirror
Video Game Free Speech Ruling Aftermath
On Monday we discussed the U.S. Supreme Court's decision that a California law banning the sale or rental of violent video games to minors was in violation of the First Amendment's free speech protection. By now, both sides of the debate have had a chance to respond to the Court's ruling. Congressman Joe Baca and CA State Senator Leland Yee pledged to continue the fight for stricter controls on the distribution of violent games, while others cried, "think of the children." Game industry groups were unsurprisingly pleased with the decision, but warned that this won't be the end of it, and asked lawmakers to stop wasting time with such legislation in the future. An article at the NY Times points out how the ruling highlights the lack of clear evidence supporting either side of the debate, and Time notes the Supreme Court's double standard, asking, "Why does the court treat violent images and sexual images so differently?" Finally, an editorial at Gamasutra reminds us that even though most game developers are breathing a sigh of relief, many would like to see the industry shift toward something more creative and meaningful than violence.
... violence. Raw violence, controlled violence, channeled violence... it's all the same. "Competition", that poster boy of capitalism, is really nothing more than a highly channeled and almost symbolic form of violence. Competition is all about putting your figurative foot to the other guy's figurative throat and squeezing until he cries uncle, right? Would somebody please explain how that is really so much different than the caveman version of that scenario, where it's actual feet and necks in play rather than sales figures and balance sheets and quarterly reports? Then there's the ubiquity of literally violent team sports, which curiously no one is rushing to banish from schools and universities and the airwaves. Violence is violence, when the intent is the same, to put one's figurative foot on the other guy's neck.
So "competition" isn't that different from game violence in terms of the intent, but once again the ruling class/elite/whatever wants to make sure we're all restricted to playing this game of life by their rules only, by which they hope to have an incumbent advantage. They've been playing this game with systems of laws for centuries, using "the law" to their primary advantage. They perhaps don't want these games reminding a generation that they in fact do have other options for playing The Game. Vive la revolucion!