Supreme Court Rules CA Video Game Ban Unconstitutional

[Gwynplaine]

Today the Supreme Court ruled that California's ban on "violent" video games was unconstitutional in Brown v. Entertainment Merchants.

Full court ruling syllabus here: http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories...MPLATE=DEFAULT

The Supreme Court ruled Monday that it is unconstitutional to bar children from buying or renting violent video games, saying government doesn't have the authority to "restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed" despite complaints that the popular and fast-changing technology allows the young to simulate acts of brutality.
On a 7-2 vote, the high court upheld a federal appeals court decision to throw out California's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors. The 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in Sacramento had ruled that the law violated minors' rights under the First Amendment, and the high court agreed.
"No doubt a state possesses legitimate power to protect children from harm," said Justice Antonin Scalia, who wrote the majority opinion. "But that does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed."

Also: http://www.cnn.com/2011/US/06/27/scotus.video.games/

Of course "violent video game" crusaders are not giving up, but this is a very welcome blow against the paternalist-determinists out there who think bad ideas corrupt and compel people.

[archibaldcrane]

I'm a bit confused, because I was still under the impression that it was illegal for movie theaters to allow children under 17 to enter R-rated films without their parents.

Is that just a widespread movie theater policy under the MPAA but not actually legally binding?

[Gwynplaine]

Well according to this: http://www.howstuffworks.com/question467.htm

This rating process is entirely optional; no filmmaker is required to submit her film for a CARA rating. Most filmmakers do because most movie theaters in the United States use the ratings system, and it's harder to get them to show a movie if it's not rated. Filmmakers who do not submit their movies to the Rating Board are free to release their movie unrated or to apply any other rating system. They cannot use any of the above ratings, however, as they are trademarked. CARA is not associated with the U.S. government, and its film ratings have no legal meaning.

[Ksandra]

BUT THIS MEANS I ACTUALLY HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT MY FUTURE KIDS PLAY. WHAT KIND OF WORLD DO WE LIVE IN?

[Melena]

Yay for California racking up more debt over what was a forgone conclusion. Thank you Leyland Yee. Hope to god you don't become mayor of SF cause you'll run that city into the ground.

[Day]

BUT THIS MEANS I ACTUALLY HAVE TO PAY ATTENTION TO WHAT MY FUTURE KIDS PLAY. WHAT KIND OF WORLD DO WE LIVE IN?

What? Girl whatchu talking?! You need to teach your kids the difference between fantasy and reality or they might end up marrying someone from an online game or something.

[Antithesis]

What? Girl whatchu talking?! You need to teach your kids the difference between fantasy and reality or they might end up marrying someone from an online game or something.

Damn.

[Correction]

It is worth noting that Thomas and Scalia did not vote the same way on this ruling.

Try counting the number of times that's happened.

[quannum]

most likely there wasn't any strong lobbying effort (aka no judge got paid) for this, so they were free to make up their own mind.

[Correction]

The PTC has weighed in. The following link has been rated D by the ESRB, as in "Don't read it if you value your sanity or patience."

http://www.gameinformer.com/b/news/a...rt-ruling.aspx

Spoiler: show

The Court has provided children with a Constitutionally-protected end-run on parental authority.

lol

[Correction]

Aaaaand California State Senator Leland Yee is not done, because by golly he's got a mayor's race to win.

http://sfappeal.com/news/2011/06/may...strictions.php

Full text for the brave:

Clicky

[Kuya]

Yee said today, "Unfortunately, the majority of the Supreme Court once again put the interests of corporate America before the interests of our children."

This statement is funny. I actually stopped for a moment to think about it.

[Ksandra]

What? Girl whatchu talking?! You need to teach your kids the difference between fantasy and reality or they might end up marrying someone from an online game or something.

hey buddy.

fuck you.


<3

[Eaglestrike]

I'm a bit confused, because I was still under the impression that it was illegal for movie theaters to allow children under 17 to enter R-rated films without their parents.

Is that just a widespread movie theater policy under the MPAA but not actually legally binding?

Yes. They self-regulate because they don't want the government coming in and being even more strict about it. So it's just a theater policy, not the law by any means.

[archibaldcrane]

Yes. They self-regulate because they don't want the government coming in and being even more strict about it. So it's just a theater policy, not the law by any means.

Sounds like the government couldn't do shit even if they wanted to now.

[Correction]

Sounds like the government couldn't do shit even if they wanted to now.

And that's the way we likes it.

[Gwynplaine]

Ultimately the conflict is between two opposing views of free will. Do people have free will or are they determined to do what they do by fate.

If a person's actions are the consequences of whatever happens around him then people can be compelled by the influences of video games/movies/t.v/books/etc. to take bad actions. Naturally that means kids who shoot people with guns in a video game are forced by the pressure of the games influence to go out and shoot a real person. In this case the violent game itself is the cause of the violence in reality.

If there is free will then a person who plays a video game may be influenced by it, but it comes down to the person choosing to take actions. In this case the media of whatever type can be as violent, stupid, brilliant, boring, or whatever as possible, but the individual choice a person makes is the cause for the violence.

Obviously determinism is false. Otherwise everyone who played the same violent games would wind up taking the same actions. Or even at the same time "good" non-violent games would make people do other non-violent things, and I've yet to see anyone battling Pokemon in the reals. But even more than that if it were true that media causes the actions people take, then why argue about banning video games at all? Wouldn't that have to mean the people who want them banned had no choice to do anything otherwise? It's such a bad argument that it's laughable, only unfortunately this same idea manages to have actual teeth even still today.

[Priran]

So kids are allowed to see and hear obscene shit in a video game but you still can't say "fuck" on TV or radio.

arbitrary is the way to be

[Drex]

BUT THINK OF THE CHILDREN

[*Shinzon*]

So kids are allowed to see and hear obscene shit in a video game but you still can't say "fuck" on TV or radio.

arbitrary is the way to be

Technically no. The argument here is more along the lines of choice. Theoretically a child is only subject to that material because a parent allows them to be subject to it and parents should have the choice which is why it's kinda under the free speech wing. The ESRB ratings, which are in place to prevent children from obtaining questionable material on their own, aren't enforced though and most stores don't card and sell stuff anyway. The only way children should be able to get the material is through a proxy like the parent. Now I agree with your sentiment about TV, and I don't understand why parental filters aren't treated more like ESRB or moving ratings. The same way you protect against underage drinking, you protect against, children buying games rated M, card them. Also there should be a system where anything rated MA for instance on TV locks out that time slot rather than having to block the whole channel making it more simple.

Though you can understand things like the superbowl Janet Jackson issue where kids would be watching, although that was blown waaaay, out of proportion. Which why at events like that you should have to meet a certain "family friendly" level, and not have a choice to broadcast a more adult level.