Free Speech Versus Kids And Violent Video Games

Lol just found this and I wanted to say this that I was raised when I was not racing my motorcycle I was playing hardcore games from the start not sure when it was maybe computer with 16mhz processor or atari or watching night of the living dead one where the nude chick is in it. My point is that I am fine in life atm because I had parents that told me what is right and wrong. I did not go out and rape or muder some1 cause of video games and myself we should also have more free speach. Like for example if those freaking people in Washington would have gave every1 of the working class (NOT RICH) the bail out money it could have solved every thing by letting people pay off stuff and not going to war cause they want to for the hell of it and by god fix the dang USA or what country you come from. I dont see them do ***for homeless people. Also IRS you dont see them pay you when your return is late but watch out if you late. What do you think about this.

The Supreme Court will decide whether free speech rights are more important than helping parents keep violent material away from children.

The justices agreed Monday to consider reinstating California's ban on the sale or rental of violent video games to minors, a law the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals in San Francisco threw out last year on grounds that it violated minors' constitutional rights.

California Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger, who signed the law in 2005, said he was pleased the high court would review the appeals court decision. He said, "We have a responsibility to our kids and our communities to protect against the effects of games that depict ultra-violent actions, just as we already do with movies."

However, the judge who wrote the decision overturning the law said at the time that there was no research showing a connection between violent video games and psychological harm to young people.

The Supreme Court's decision to hear the case comes only a week after the high court voted overwhelmingly to strike down a federal law banning videos showing animal cruelty. The California case poses similar free speech concerns, although the state law is aimed at protecting children, raising an additional issue.

California's law would have prohibited the sale or rental of violent games — those that include "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being" — to anyone under 18. It also would have created strict labeling requirements for video game manufacturers. Retailers who violated the act could have been fined up to $1,000 for each violation.

Lawyer Stephen S. Smith, who has represented several video game companies in court, said the Supreme Court may use this case to explain how far lawmakers can go when trying to regulate depictions of violence.

"There is a fair amount of First Amendment law in the area of sexual explicitness and obscenity," he said. "But there is not nearly as much law on the issue of violence and what may be restricted or not under the First Amendment in that arena."

The California law never took effect, and was challenged shortly after it was signed by Schwarzenegger. A U.S. District Court blocked it after the industry sued the state, citing constitutional concerns.

Opponents of the law note that video games already are labeled with a rating system that lets parents decide what games their children can purchase and play. They also argue that video games — which the Entertainment Software Association says are played in 68 percent of American households — are protected forms of expression under the First Amendment to the Constitution.

But supporters of the law note that the Supreme Court has upheld laws keeping minors from buying or having access to pornography, alcohol and tobacco. And the California law does not ban parents from purchasing or buying the video games for their children.

Michael D. Gallagher, president of the Entertainment Software Association, said video games should get the same First Amendment protections as the court reaffirmed last week for videos.

Given last week's ruling on videos showing animal cruelty, "we are hopeful that the court will reject California's invitation to break from these settled principles by treating depictions of violence, especially those in creative works, as unprotected by the First Amendment," he said.

Leland Yee, the California state senator who wrote the video game ban, said the Supreme Court obviously doesn't think the animal cruelty video ban and the violent video game ban are comparable. If the justices thought that, he said, they would not be reviewing the 9th Circuit's decision to throw out the video game ban.

"Clearly, the justices want to look specifically at our narrowly tailored law that simply limits sales of ultra-violent games to kids without prohibiting speech," said Yee, a San Francisco Democrat.

California lawmakers approved the law, in part, by relying on several studies suggesting violent games can be linked to aggression, anti-social behavior and desensitization to violence in children. But federal judges have dismissed that research.

"None of the research establishes or suggests a causal link between minors playing violent video games and actual psychological or neurological harm, and inferences to that effect would not be reasonable," Judge Consuelo Callahan said in the 9th Circuit ruling.

Callahan also said there were less restrictive ways to protect children from "unquestionably violent" video games.

The supporters of the law say the same legal justifications for banning minors from accessing pornography can be applied to violent video games. They point to recent Federal Trade Commission studies suggesting that the video game industry's rating system was not effective in blocking minors from purchasing games designed for adults.

But courts in other states have struck down similar laws.

The video game industry also argues that approval of California's video game restrictions could open the door for states to limit minors' access to other material on the grounds of protecting children. "The state, in essence, asks us to create a new category of nonprotected material based on its depiction of violence," Callahan wrote in the 30-page ruling.

The court will hear arguments in this case in the fall.

The case is Schwarzenegger v. Video Software Dealers Association, 08-1448.

Don't wanna read all of that but I'm guessing this is about enforcing the "age requirement" thing on the back by the ESRB? If so, I don't really see the problem since you can always just get someone to buy it for you or order online. If it's not exactly that then ignore this post.

People take freedom of speech too litterally. There are many things specifically not allowed in it and has been for a long time. This is actually along similar lines

Wow to the 2 people that posted this.

"Don't wanna read all of that but I'm guessing this is about enforcing the "age requirement" thing on the back by the ESRB? If so, I don't really see the problem since you can always just get someone to buy it for you or order online. If it's not exactly that then ignore this post."

Although was kind of a long email, you have basically handed your rights (assuming you are a minor) and given them to whoever wants to make choices for you, this is half the reason we are quickly losing our rights.

There is so much more involved with this than just putting a simple age restriction on sales of games, and if approved by the supreme court will be able to be applied broadly through many different types of entertainment.

It would not be that much of a step further to add product tracking and penalties and fines to the buyer of the games that even as much as let a minor even view it. On top of that who is going to decide what is violent and how far the restrictions should go. Will Pokemon be called too violent? What about Final Fantasy and all variations? Who gets to decide this and how much force will it hold. That is what is at stake here. 1 little ripple in the pond can send waves of unintended side effects to all minors forever.

Think before you approve or deny stuff.

Note: The above is my view and opinion, I am not saying this exact things are going to happen, but when 1 block is toppled where will it end.

What ifs are just that what ifs. The odds of a game Rated E for everyone getting banned from kids is rediculous. I mean seriously we already have a rating system in place. One that is supposed to stop kids from getting those M rated games (but really we know how well that works)

What if Obama manages to turn this country completely into a socailist government!?! I mean ***he has already started

Well I did say to ignore my post if I was wrong which it seems I was. It was a really long post and could've done with a "tl;dr" to summarize it. If it were only an age restriction on games I wouldn't be against it but it seems to be much more than that. Again, ignore my first post since I was apparently wrong. I didn't feel like reading ALL of it since it doesn't affect me personally.

This thread is too long .

Wheres the dude that says "Whammy!" and that Fontana dude, then you got the whole crew.

^^^ This..

I was going to read it, since I play a lot of games, then I gathered from the comments that this is really only relevant to people under 18.. Since I can buy whatever game I want, this isn't relevant to me.

Future note to OP, include a tl;dr summary.

Honestly I'm all for a rating of this kind e_e, there is something similar in England, but it's much more enforced. Games are generally rated as movies and the like.
There's nothing like sitting with a classroom of 8 year olds and some kid is quoting Duke Nukem "I'm gonna rip off your head and ***down your neck" lol.

Granted, if folks really really wanted their kids to buy these games, they'd find a way, whether it be through them buying it for the child etc.

By the caliber of people growing up these days, would you really want them to have all their rights, when they can't even conduct themselves in an orderly fashion? Give someone an inch and they'll take a mile... kinda!

I don't see how the judge can't see that videogames can make some people violent, this is not a general thing though. There was a story a whileback about a kid who shot his parents in the back of the head because they took his copy of halo3; his mom died, but the father survived amazingly. (but this can be seen as not really the playing of the game's fault, more-so action/reaction of parent and child if that makes sense). But it's still there. Another example was a kid of about 7 stole his parents car and went driving, saying he thought it was ok because he did it on Grand Theft Auto.

I think one of the main problems here is not the video games causing violence, but the parents not defining what is right and wrong properly.
"Hey Billy, I know you enjoy playing games where you hack up zombies, but the neighbors cat is not a zombie, so you gotta stop chopping them up, ok?"

If a rating system would at least alleviate some of the issues here, a parent might look at the disk and think "Hmm well, it says for 18+ only.. MAYBE the content of this game is not suitable for my child.", Does anyone really think their parents know wtf they buy for you videogames wise unless they read a review or are an avid gamer themselves? >< I know there were a few games in my repertoire my folks didn't appreciate me playing as a kid, and they weren't really strict parents. But they were still shocked at the kind of things that got marketed to youngsters.

Tl;Dr version of mah rambleenz -- Free speech Vs. Being able to keep the violent materials away from kids? I'd vote for the censorship hands down.

People who snap and kill over games would've snapped over something else earlier or later in life.

tl;dr

I'm all for keeping tweens/kids off FPS and MMO's though.

So many things break the freedom of speech law and or disregard it completely.

Take money for instance. Money is involved in freedom of speech. But can you bribe and officer? No.

You can say I wish you would fall into a pit of lava. But you can't say "You will fall into a pit of lava."

When you think about it freedom of speech and other constitutional laws are screwed up.

1. It's an ammendment not a law.

2. Your examples are horrible. Bribing a police officer? Seriously you want to count that as an infringment on your freedom of speech lol

3. That example doesn't actually break or even bend the addmendment. And you can tell someone they will fall in lava just not threaten to do so.


4. Freedom of speech is not all inclusive anywhere. There are things that specifically outlawed no matter where you live cause it would be stupid to be able to say anything anytime with no consequences. Turns out words can cause real things to occur that are bad and just cause you want to say them doesn't mean you should. Classic example yelling fire in a crowded area or inciting a riot

Yeah^^; that's why I said I couldn't pin that incident purely on the games :P

Sorry its 3AM here and I can't sleep, so can't really think of good examples. And Actually you can't say that its counted as a terroristic threat.

bad parents are bad parents nuff sed

What does terrorism have to do with anything? These things were put down way before people freeked out about terrorism.

If you use your freedom of speech to cause harm to people or property what you say has shown to have a high probablity to do so it's probably not allowed. Same goes with encouraging others to commit crimes through your words. Nor should it be allowed.

Alot of countries are far worse than america and limit pretty much anything they want. Like you can't even talk bad about government or people that work for it

Just by name its called a "terroristic threat." Damn Dasva I didn't come up the names.

I don't think you understand what I am saying.

Threatening things inciting others to do illegal stuff etc that has nothing to do with terrorism is still not allowed.

Man why is everyone still on such a terrorist kick. These laws/ammendents etc have been around long before this terrorist kick so stop blaming it on that because you would've been arrested the same for inciting a riot back in 1930 as now.

If your words cause harm or illegal activities you will be held accountable.

what the hell does obama have to do with this? keep your ***-filled lame *** jargon out of a thread that has nothing to do with what you're spewing about.

Sorry I did misunderstand what you're saying. Thats kinda what I was say but @3 in the morning I was a bit at a loss for words. As I've had 5 Tests today and Haven't slept for a good 48hrs. Insomnia is nice, don't you think?

Lol..

Clearly he was demonstrating the use of a "what if." Now if you would be so kind as to clean the sand out of your vagina and stop assuming everything word said against your so called "leader" is a criticism, especially when its true.

I seriously think that parents need to take control and be parents, not a best friend to his/her child. Kids get away so much these days and the adults turn a blind eye, living in denial because they don't want to face the truth.


I also believe that some people really have a hard time telling the difference between fiction and reality. Especially @ a young age, parents need to sit with their kids and talk to them about life, what's real and what's fake,so that they won't have these issues adjusting in society.

Parents need to stop blaming media and other means of communication and start taking responsibility, and therefore there would not be all these shitty *** restrictions all over the damn place