Supreme Court Debates Video Game Violence

[CptStern]

TLDR: Supreme Court Justices grilled attorneys Tuesday on the issue of video game violence, but seemed to preliminarily side with the video game industry on First Amendment issues.

The case – Schwarzenegger v EMA – revolves around a 2005 California law that made it illegal for retailers to sell violent video games to anyone under 18.


the gist of the debates:

While Justices did seem to side with the video game industry in their questions, by no means did they give EMA attorney Paul Smith a free pass - peppering him with questions about the harmful effects of video game violence and scolding the industry for seemingly shrugging off reports from organizations that indicate there is an effect on children.

During oral arguments, Justices almost immediately began peppering California’s representative Zackery Morazzini about the vagueness of the law’s language.

“Would you get rid of rap music? Have you heard some of the lyrics of some of the rap music, some of the original violent songs that have been sung about killing people and about other violence directed to them?,” asked Justice Sotomayor. “Why isn’t that obscene in the sense that you’re using the word – or deviant

Further, he added, the effects of classifying video game violence as something that can be regulated could lead to wider regulation of the entertainment industry.

“I’m not just concerned with the vagueness; I am concerned with the First Amendment,” said Scalia. “It has never been understood that the freedom of speech did not include portrayals of violence. … What’s next after violence? Drinking? Smoking? Will movies that feature scenes of smoking affect children? … Movies that show smoking can't be shown to children? Will that affect them?

Of course, I suppose it will. But are we to sit day by day to decide what else will be made an exception from the First Amendment? Why is this particular exception okay, but the other ones that I just suggested are not okay?”

the video game industry didnt exactly get a free ride in the debate:

Justices also dismissed Smith’s assertion that the parental controls offered in many games were an effective way to prevent young players from viewing the most objectionable content.

“Any 13-year-old can bypass parental controls in about 5 minutes,” said Chief Justice Roberts. “We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg with mercy, being merciless and decapitating them, shooting people in the leg so they fall down. We protect children from that. We don't actively expose them to that.”

http://www.cnbc.com/id/39969997

http://gamasutra.com/view/news/31316/Analysis_from_the_Supreme_Court_Schwarzenegger_v_EMA.php

 

[StarBob]

In other news - Supreme court makes ambiguous decision about an already regulated industry that changes pretty much nothing.

 

[CptStern]

they havent made any decisions. the hearing is to determine whether a law banning violent video games to minors will be reinstated

http://www.ea.com/blogs/ea-underground/care-schwarzenegger-ema

 

[CyberPitz]

Why don't we ban Movie violence too, while we're at it.

Sorry, it's not the video game's industry's fault that parents can't control their children, or teach them right from wrong and let the games/TV raise them.

 

[Remus]

Sorry, it's not the video game's industry's fault that parents can't control their children, or teach them right from wrong and let the games/TV raise them.

So much this.

 

[CptStern]

Why don't we ban Movie violence too, while we're at it.

Sorry, it's not the video game's industry's fault that parents can't control their children, or teach them right from wrong and let the games/TV raise them.

that's what the supreme court justices are saying "why pick on video games and not movies etc"

 

[Bad^Hat]

We do not have a tradition in this country of telling children they should watch people actively hitting schoolgirls over the head with a shovel so they'll beg with mercy...

Uhh... which game is this?

 

[Krynn72]

To be honest, I think the law should be re-instated, only adjusted to prevent sale to kids under 15, rather than 18, and to more specifically lay out the boundaries of what constitutes excessive violence. Similarly I think violent movies, tv shows, and music should have the same impositions. I like how everyone on the internet gets all ragey when sex is censored in games and say things like "HURR WHY SEX BANNED NOT VIOLENCE?!?! VIOLENCE SO MUCH WORSE!" and then get all ragey again when violence gets restricted. Whats worse is that its sad that I need to point out the blatant, and likely intentional misrepresenting of statements like "banning the sale of violent content to people under 18," to be synonymous with "banning the sale of violent video games."

I agree with the Justice that the industry is too eager to shrug off evidence that these games can have significantly harmful effects on young children, and too eager to promote evidence that shows NOPE NO DAMAGE LOL. Frankly, this is a situation where I think we should say "**** da constitution" and do what progresses the well-being of children rather than what progresses the boundaries of whats considered free-speech. So really, more studies and evidence is needed to clearly display the effects of violent images, lyrics, and interactivity has on young children. Plus, I mean, its not like children get most of the rights provided by the constitution anyways, why make an exception here?

 

[CptStern]

To be honest, I think the law should be re-instated, only adjusted to prevent sale to kids under 15, rather than 18, and to more specifically lay out the boundaries of what constitutes excessive violence. Similarly I think violent movies, tv shows, and music should have the same impositions. I like how everyone on the internet gets all ragey when sex is censored in games and say things like "HURR WHY SEX BANNED NOT VIOLENCE?!?! VIOLENCE SO MUCH WORSE!" and then get all ragey again when violence gets restricted. Whats worse is that its sad that I need to point out the blatant, and likely intentional misrepresenting of statements like "banning the sale of violent content to people under 18," to be synonymous with "banning the sale of violent video games."

I agree with the Justice that the industry is too eager to shrug off evidence that these games can have significantly harmful effects on young children, and too eager to promote evidence that shows NOPE NO DAMAGE LOL. Frankly, this is a situation where I think we should say "**** da constitution" and do what progresses the well-being of children rather than what progresses the boundaries of whats considered free-speech. So really, more studies and evidence is needed to clearly display the effects of violent images, lyrics, and interactivity has on young children. Plus, I mean, its not like children get most of the rights provided by the constitution anyways, why make an exception here?

the movie industry, the publishing industry is self-governed/censored. historically whenever the government steps in and tries to censor content there's a massive uproar by the industry and the public. I dont see why the government has to make a special exception for video games and not the film or publishing industry. current obscenity laws already cover film, books AND video games. I dont see why video games should get special consideration just because some socially conservative dumbasses think their opinion represents the common good for society

 

[Stormy]

Seems fair to me? Whats wrong with not selling 18+ games to people under 18? Its how they do it here in the UK and no one complains.

Its easy to say its the "parents fault" which to some extent but parents dont really understand what they are buying with 18+ games and perhaps stronger laws will give them a better understanding that these things have 18+ on them for a reason?

 

[CptStern]

Seems fair to me? Whats wrong with not selling 18+ games to people under 18? Its how they do it here in the UK and no one complains.

imposed by the state or at retail? for example; currently in north america the ESRB rates games and retailers carry them based on whatever policy they may have in place; ie, Walmart, target, best buy etc will not sell games rated Adults Only ..but the government didnt tell they CANT sell those games, they just decided on their own; self regulation instead of state imposed regulation. as it stands right now walmart, best buy, target already ban the sale of 18+ (M) games to anyone under 18; so theoretically there is no problem. why do we need an added measure from a 3rd party? this law would make it a criminal offense to sell rated M games to a minor, making the retailer responsible, not the parent/minor

 

[CyberPitz]

imposed by the state or at retail? for example; currently in north america the ESRB rates games and retailers carry them based on whatever policy they may have in place; ie, Walmart, target, best buy etc will not sell games rated Adults Only ..but the government didnt tell they CANT sell those games, they just decided on their own; self regulation instead of state imposed regulation. as it stands right now walmart, best buy, target already ban the sale of 18+ (M) games to anyone under 18; so theoretically there is no problem. why do we need an added measure from a 3rd party? this law would make it a criminal offense to sell rated M games to a minor, making the retailer responsible, not the parent/minor

I agree. Either make the fines for selling to youngsters higher or try to educate parents better, so they don't let the kids play these games.

I hardly see why we need the government to step in here even more.

 

[DEATH eVADER]

Why isn't the violence seen on the news censored, given that would be contributing to extreme emotional behaviour

 

[Stormy]

I'm not saying it should be the government or not really but there should be something in place which all retailers have to abide to. Other wise its just confusing for everyone.

It will just take away the confusion. Right now people complain a lot about video game violence because they don't understand it, banning the sale of 18+ rated games to miners sends a clear message as to who they are intended for and inturn stop some people complaining!

 

[CyberPitz]

I'm not saying it should be the government or not really but there should be something in place which all retailers have to abide to. Other wise its just confusing for everyone.

It will just take away the confusion. Right now people complain a lot about video game violence because they don't understand it, banning the sale of 18+ rated games to miners sends a clear message as to who they are intended for and inturn stop some people complaining!

Isn't that what's already happening right now, though?

 

[CptStern]

I'm not saying it should be the government or not really but there should be something in place which all retailers have to abide to. Other wise its just confusing for everyone.

the esrb already does a good enough job. dont need government and conservative ninnies stepping in

It will just take away the confusion. Right now people complain a lot about video game violence because they don't understand it, banning the sale of 18+ rated games to minerssends a clear message as to who they are intended for and inturn stop some people complaining!

what will the chilean miners do with all their free time?


there's no real confusion at retail. M means mature; if you (the retailer, not you you) cant understand what mature means maybe this isnt a problem that concerns you. hell my 7 year old son knows he cant play M rated games but some T rated games are ok SO LONG AS HIS FATHER/MOTHER APPROVE OF IT BEFOREHAND! see? no need for government intereference; good old fashioned parenting saves the day

 

[Krynn72]

I dont see why the government has to make a special exception for video games and not the film or publishing industry.

Allow me to refer you to the second sentence of my post.

Please look at the second sentence of my post.

Thank you for allowing me to refer you to the second sentence of my post.

 

[Stormy]

I was assuming not if each retailer does things differently?

Living in the UK I'm not 100% sure how things are working in the US but they way i see it there should be a set of rules everyone should follow, parents should understand and which stop kids playing games!

What is really frustrating tho is when parents buy the games for kids, they blame the makers of the game for it being to violent!

 

[Stigmata]

Uhh... which game is this?

Silent Hill: The Ballad of Gay Tony