quote:A federal judge ruled on Monday a California law to label violent video games and bar their sale to minors was unconstitutional, prompting Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger to say he would appeal the ruling.
California passed a law in 2005 regulating video games with strong support from Schwarzenegger, the former star of many violent action films. Legislators argued violent video games could bring psychological harm and spark aggressive behavior in minors.
I don't see how labeling a video game as not suitable for minors is restricting free speech.
I don't see why video games should be exempt from restrictive viewing when other forms of media (music, movies, videos) are.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
quote:I don't see how labeling a video game as not suitable for minors is restricting free speech.
The act does more than require labeling - it bars the sale of certain games to minors.
quote:I don't see why video games should be exempt from restrictive viewing when other forms of media (music, movies, videos) are.
It's not clear that the judge's ruling exempts video games from any form of restriction whatsoever. Moreover, most of the restrictions we're familiar with either are not government-enforced (MPAA, etc.) and therefore do not raise constitutional issues, or are related to the public airwaves, which have a separate justification for government regulation. So the issue being evaluated by the judge was quite different.
So I don't think this judgment says anything about exempting video games from restrictions on viewing that have been upheld for other forms of media. These are different restrictions - government enforced bars on certain sales - than those other media are subject to.
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Aha. Thank you, Dagonee.
Posted by Dagonee (Member # 5818) on :
I just tried to find the opinion, but the CA Northern District web site is not being cooperative. If I can get hold of it, I'll summarize the major points.
I expect the 9th to uphold this ruling. I can't predict if SCOTUS will even take it or, if they do, how they would rule.
Posted by vonk (Member # 9027) on :
IMO, having an extreme violence warning on a video game would be very effective marketing to the already-fans-of-violent-video-games target audience. Regardless of sales restrictions, more copies of the games would be in circulation with these labels.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, that was my thought as I read about Arnie wanting the labels to stay. I'm a bit cynical. I'm also addicted to Halo. There's nothing like scoping in on an elite and getting a clean headshot. Though I also like the scenery.
Posted by Belle (Member # 2314) on :
quote:I'm also addicted to Halo. There's nothing like scoping in on an elite and getting a clean headshot. Though I also like the scenery.
You said it. My seven year old son is deadly with an energy sword. Myself, I prefer a shotgun for close-in work, though the energy sword is devastatingly effective against flood.
Posted by pooka (Member # 5003) on :
Yeah, I don't know what it is with little kids and the energy swords. We can be playing a three way game of swords, and my husband starts whining because the boy can take him out with one hit, but he has to hit the boy twice. Well, we don't normally play Slayer but we were taking turns choosing. I mean, it's not so different from freeze tag, apart from the animated blood and the wrestlemania voice saying "Running Riot!"
Posted by King of Men (Member # 6684) on :
Deadly with a blade, is Belle's-son-ius!
Posted by Scott R (Member # 567) on :
Did CA's law require labeling beyond what the ESRB did?
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
CA should require all boys age 3-18 wear warning labels saying that they're likely to think violent and sexual thoughts, regardless of what media they're exposed to, and just get it over with.
Posted by ketchupqueen (Member # 6877) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: CA should require all boys age 3-18 wear warning labels saying that they're likely to think violent and sexual thoughts, regardless of what media they're exposed to, and just get it over with.
But that would be politically incorrect-- they'd have to put a similar warning label on girls.
Posted by MightyCow (Member # 9253) on :
Girls probably think the same stuff, but they're better at keeping quite about it, at least to boys
The girl tag would say, "Girls think about sugar and spice, and everything nice... and how to steal you away from their best friend while tricking you into buying them flowers."
Posted by foundling (Member # 6348) on :
Yes, you keep on thinking that's what girls think about, MC.
::steeples fingers and laughs at stupid men while contemplating how nice it is to secretly run the world::
::wonders how long it will stay a secret...::
Posted by mr_porteiro_head (Member # 4644) on :
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: CA should require all boys age 3-18 wear warning labels saying that they're likely to think violent and sexual thoughts, regardless of what media they're exposed to, and just get it over with.
Do you think that the media that people are exposed to might have an affect on the amount or type of sexual or violent thoughts that people have?
Posted by C3PO the Dragon Slayer (Member # 10416) on :
As long as "free speech" is "being able to do whatever I want," the establishment is an anarchy. Free speech is nothing more than the government not punishing those who voice their opinions because they disagree. It secures our ability to communicate with one another and not live in ambiguity and uncertainty, with only one power influencing what we think. Citing free speech (or free market, for that matter) to justify selling virtual indulgences in every sin known to mankind to young children is absolutely disgusting.
Posted by Sterling (Member # 8096) on :
...Yes, I can see how we get from not legally barring video games to "selling virtual indulgences in every sin known to mankind to young children." It's a slippery slope, indeed. </sarcasm>
Posted by BlackBlade (Member # 8376) on :
quote:Originally posted by mr_porteiro_head:
quote:Originally posted by MightyCow: CA should require all boys age 3-18 wear warning labels saying that they're likely to think violent and sexual thoughts, regardless of what media they're exposed to, and just get it over with.
Do you think that the media that people are exposed to might have an affect on the amount or type of sexual or violent thoughts that people have?
I would. But I think the expression of force and imposing one's will in spite of opposition are both large chunks of human nature that everyone must come to terms with. I don't think anything we do could remove that, and I think if we DID come up with something it would be very unethical.
Posted by Wendybird (Member # 84) on :
So all those years growing up I could have insisted the movie theater sell me a ticket to a rated R movie even though I was only 14 since there is no law to back up the recommendation? Because when I was in high school the movie theaters would not sell tickets to R movies to underage kids unless a parent/adult was there buying them for them. Which would be feasible in the case of this video game law also - a kid couldn't use his allowance to go buy the game but he could give it to his mom to buy it for him.
Posted by rivka (Member # 4859) on :
Wendybird, no. There's no law -- but the theaters do have binding contracts with the distributors, and they can (theoretically, anyway) lose their ability to show movies if they flagrantly refuse to comply with the guidelines.
Then again, until recently, many theaters had a wink-and-a-nod policy. That is not really true any more; there has been some cracking down.
Posted by kmbboots (Member # 8576) on :
quote:Originally posted by Sterling: ...Yes, I can see how we get from not legally barring video games to "selling virtual indulgences in every sin known to mankind to young children." It's a slippery slope, indeed. </sarcasm>
Not particularly slippery; it just doesn't even make sense.
![[Smile]](smile.gif)