Supreme Court banning games

[Assarax]

In recent times, video games have fallen under the First Amendment. A federal appeals court even ruled that the California law violated the First Amendment. We're seeing more artistic, developed video games with story lines and highly advanced graphics. Video games can be considered art now, and rightly so. It takes a lot of skill and talent to be able to do graphic designing like that.

The storylines are becoming more and more developed, and as such they are starting to become similar to movies. Look at Metal Gear Solid 4, that game was like half cut scene, half game play.

If the US Supreme Court holds precedence in any regard (which they should, all their rulings are based on precedence), then they need look no further than motion pictures. The same thing happened with movies way back in the day. Motion picture started off as news reels and the like and weren't classified as protected under the First Amendment. But, as the storylines grew and developed, and more controversial issues were addressed via film, there was a need to classify film as protected speech. I have a lot of evidence to support this, as I'm in a freedom of speech class right now. I just don't have the textbook handy to cite them right now.

This was because censors from state to state, and city to city, were setting their own restrictions on what could or could not be shown in the state or city limits. Essentially, they were quashing movies they didn't like. The same is starting to happen to video games. Idiots like Jack Thompson and Hillary Clinton blame video games (especially violent ones) for all the problems afflicting today's youth... school shootings, childhood obesity, etc. Video games.

The issue here lies with the parents. Parents aren't being attentive enough to control what content their child sees and hears. There's a pretty good video clip of Frank Zappa on Crossfire from the 1980's (I think it was 1986), talking about freedom of speech and "filth". He basically said that it was the parents' responsibility to know what they were going to allow their children to see and hear, and that after a certain age, you can't control them anyway. Banning speech only serves to drive it underground and make it more popular. If the Supreme Court bans it, it will become like alcohol or cigarettes... all kids will have to do is ask anyone over the age of 18 to purchase it for them.

My point is that if parents paid more attention, and perhaps stopped freaking out about the dangers of the real world, they could actually control what games their kids are playing. If they're so concerned with kids differentiating between real life and a video game, maybe parents need to actually let their kids experience the world, instead of keeping them inside all day out of fear.

[Mauzel]

Originally Posted by Assarax

In recent times, video games have fallen under the First Amendment. A federal appeals court even ruled that the California law violated the First Amendment. We're seeing more artistic, developed video games with story lines and highly advanced graphics. Video games can be considered art now, and rightly so. It takes a lot of skill and talent to be able to do graphic designing like that.

The storylines are becoming more and more developed, and as such they are starting to become similar to movies. Look at Metal Gear Solid 4, that game was like half cut scene, half game play.

If the US Supreme Court holds precedence in any regard (which they should, all their rulings are based on precedence), then they need look no further than motion pictures. The same thing happened with movies way back in the day. Motion picture started off as news reels and the like and weren't classified as protected under the First Amendment. But, as the storylines grew and developed, and more controversial issues were addressed via film, there was a need to classify film as protected speech. I have a lot of evidence to support this, as I'm in a freedom of speech class right now. I just don't have the textbook handy to cite them right now.

This was because censors from state to state, and city to city, were setting their own restrictions on what could or could not be shown in the state or city limits. Essentially, they were quashing movies they didn't like. The same is starting to happen to video games. Idiots like Jack Thompson and Hillary Clinton blame video games (especially violent ones) for all the problems afflicting today's youth... school shootings, childhood obesity, etc. Video games.

The issue here lies with the parents. Parents aren't being attentive enough to control what content their child sees and hears. There's a pretty good video clip of Frank Zappa on Crossfire from the 1980's (I think it was 1986), talking about freedom of speech and "filth". He basically said that it was the parents' responsibility to know what they were going to allow their children to see and hear, and that after a certain age, you can't control them anyway. Banning speech only serves to drive it underground and make it more popular. If the Supreme Court bans it, it will become like alcohol or cigarettes... all kids will have to do is ask anyone over the age of 18 to purchase it for them.

My point is that if parents paid more attention, and perhaps stopped freaking out about the dangers of the real world, they could actually control what games their kids are playing. If they're so concerned with kids differentiating between real life and a video game, maybe parents need to actually let their kids experience the world, instead of keeping them inside all day out of fear.

Yes, though although it technically falls under the First Amendment (which is actually still a point of intense debate), by labeling it as potentially dangerous and influential, we are talking about the natural rights to life -> supercedes freedom of expression. This is particularily how California got the law passed despite its "violation of 1st Amendment," the debate falls under, if it is considered dangerous, then the move will be that the promotion of 1st amendment rights should be superceded by the depravation of rights to live for another. Which I'm sure you understand, is the base rationale behind the Patriot Act and its violation of the right to privacy.

Also people argue that games are interactive, to passive movies. Therefore, the gamer is participating in the action, thus have greater influence on the gamer than a passive movie. Thus, it should be considered something similar to shooting ranges, with active participation, and thus unregulated will be potentially dangerous.

[tom the pit leader]

Originally Posted by Mauzel

Yes, though although it technically falls under the First Amendment (which is actually still a point of intense debate), by labeling it as potentially dangerous and influential, we are talking about the natural rights to life -> supercedes freedom of expression. This is particularily how California got the law passed despite its "violation of 1st Amendment," the debate falls under, if it is considered dangerous, then the move will be that the promotion of 1st amendment rights should be superceded by the depravation of rights to live for another. Which I'm sure you understand, is the base rationale behind the Patriot Act and its violation of the right to privacy.

Also people argue that games are interactive, to passive movies. Therefore, the gamer is participating in the action, thus have greater influence on the gamer than a passive movie. Thus, it should be considered something similar to shooting ranges, with active participation, and thus unregulated will be potentially dangerous.

That's a great argument, except that there's less than no evidence that violent video games actually cause crime.

[Assarax]

Originally Posted by Mauzel

Yes, though although it technically falls under the First Amendment (which is actually still a point of intense debate), by labeling it as potentially dangerous and influential, we are talking about the natural rights to life -> supercedes freedom of expression. This is particularily how California got the law passed despite its "violation of 1st Amendment," the debate falls under, if it is considered dangerous, then the move will be that the promotion of 1st amendment rights should be superceded by the depravation of rights to live for another. Which I'm sure you understand, is the base rationale behind the Patriot Act and its violation of the right to privacy.

Also people argue that games are interactive, to passive movies. Therefore, the gamer is participating in the action, thus have greater influence on the gamer than a passive movie. Thus, it should be considered something similar to shooting ranges, with active participation, and thus unregulated will be potentially dangerous.

To quote Oliver Wendell Holmes in his dissenting opinion on the case Abrams v. United States, he states that the government only has a right to restrict speech that presents a clear and imminent danger of bringing about preventable evils. Admittedly, the case was about leaflets published during wartime that the government deemed seditious, but the dissenting opinions of Supreme Court justices are taken into account when determining precedence, which is what this case is going to come down to.

Currently, there are no strong connections between violent video games and acts of violence, preventable though they usually are. No one can say for certain that video games train kids in how to kill and desensitizes them to death and violence. Therefore, there is no clear and imminent danger to the safety and security of the United States or its citizens.

As for the Patriot Act, indeed this was the case, but it was also pushed through by fear of terrorist operatives working within the United States. Our rights should never be superceded in the interest of national security, particularly our right to freedom of speech and expression.

EDIT: I also want to state that due to the media's pure lack of explaining the 'why' of 9/11, it allowed the Bush administration to take hold and give their own simplistic version of why 9/11 happened, and tricked the American people into surrendering their freedoms for "national security" under the Patriot Act.

[Mauzel]

The Idea I'm trying to get at is simply... LETs BRING PICKET SIGNS TO THE SUPREME COURT... XD
Supreme court does not function on justice, it functions on public opinion and the basis of national security. (Basically the old National Interest > National Ideals) If we garner sufficient protest toward their possible ruling, they may reconsider the plan to outlaw games. XD

[Jooshbox234]

Originally Posted by Commander Power

You know what else takes rights guaranteed by the constitution? The Patriot Act.

Australia has some of the worst gaming censorship laws in the world, I suppose you guys are next

Your point being? I never said I agreed with the Patriot Act.

[Imperial]

There was one scientific study done (link easily found via google) that shows that violent video games reduces one's hesitation to commit a violent act with a firearm. ie if you play Call of Honor Killzone Halo, your conscience is slightly more eroded than the non-violent game player.

But the research doesn't directly apply to people running out with guns and killing each other. It only shows a relationship that a violent game player has fewer reservations about pulling triggers. Which I'm sure is also applicable to people who actually own guns, target shoot, or carry firearms in the course of their duties.