Supreme Court to rule on CA's video game ban

[William Wallace]

I think Scalia's right on the mark this time. Your thoughts?

https://www.ocregister.com/opinion/games-275214-video-ban.html

The U.S. Supreme Court heard arguments last week in Schwarzenegger v. Entertainment Merchants, which will decide whether California's blanket ban on people under age 18 being allowed to purchase certain violent video games will stand.
The justices seemed sympathetic to the idea that there should be some way to shield minors from violent games in which the player has the option of "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being," as the 2005 statute put it. But most of the justices' questions seemed to indicate they think that California's law went too far to avoid violating the First Amendment's protection of speech and expression.

The ban, which would probably include titles like "Postal 2," "Mortal Kombat" or "Grand Theft Auto IV," seemed too far along the famous slippery slope for most justices.

"What about films? What about comic books? Grimm's Fairy Tales? Why are video games special?" asked progressive Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. To an argument that video games are something new and unique, conservative Justice Antonin Scalia shot back: "That same argument could have been made when movies first came out. They could have said, 'Oh, we've had violence in Grimm's Fairy Tales, but we've never had it live on the screen.' I mean, every time there's a new technology, you can make that argument."

The primary task of protecting children from potentially harmful activities or impressions belongs to parents, and parents vary in their concerns. It is almost impossible to prevent children from ever seeing or vicariously participating in violence conveyed through a variety of media, and part of a parent's job is helping children to deal with that reality. An outright government ban not only violates our constitutional traditions, it simply is not helpful.
A ruling from the high court is expected sometime for the current term ends in June.

[El Barto]

I think Scalia is an ass-hat.  The difference is in the playability of it.  Movies, books, TV shows, songs--none of them allow you to participate.  Games are interactive, presenting one with the option to do violent things without the consequences.  Of course I disagree with the ban (as it's explained here, at least), I just think Scalia's argument was flawed.

My question is if The Man can restrict the rental of specific video titles to kiddos, why should games be any different?  I'd like to think that SCOTUS shoots it down, but I have no reason to think that they can or will.

Somebody should ask Arnie if he would ban children from renting Predator, Terminators 1-3 or Commando.

[PlaysLikeMyung]

So Scalia is in favor of the ban, then?

[El Barto]

There's no telling what that guy thinks, but his questions seemed to suggest that he was opposed to it.

[Ħ]

How did this issue make it to the Supreme Court when the people that are interested in this restriction being lifted off are all under the voting age?

[PowerSlave]

Is it just me or, does this remind anyone else of the PMRC bullshit that went on in the 80's and early 90's?

Government restrictions and labels actually helped to improve the record sales of the music that they were trying to restrict at the time. The more "evil" and "shocking" that the establishment tries to make a product, the more entising it becomes to the people that they're trying to "protect".

[William Wallace]

I think Scalia is an ass-hat.  The difference is in the playability of it.  Movies, books, TV shows, songs--none of them allow you to participate.  Games are interactive, presenting one with the option to do violent things without the consequences.  Of course I disagree with the ban (as it's explained here, at least), I just think Scalia's argument was flawed.

My question is if The Man can restrict the rental of specific video titles to kiddos, why should games be any different?  I'd like to think that SCOTUS shoots it down, but I have no reason to think that they can or will.

Somebody should ask Arnie if he would ban children from renting Predator, Terminators 1-3 or Commando.

I still think his argument is valid. Movies and comics may not be interactive, but the innocent children are still exposed to the material. Besides, the research on gaming as a catalyst for violence is mixed, and the stuff that shows an association obviously suffers from confirmation bias.

[El Barto]

How did this issue make it to the Supreme Court when the people that are interested in this restriction being lifted off are all under the voting age?

The people who are interested in the restriction being lifted are the people who manufacture and sell video games.  They vote with billions of dollars.

I think Scalia is an ass-hat.  The difference is in the playability of it.  Movies, books, TV shows, songs--none of them allow you to participate.  Games are interactive, presenting one with the option to do violent things without the consequences.  Of course I disagree with the ban (as it's explained here, at least), I just think Scalia's argument was flawed.

My question is if The Man can restrict the rental of specific video titles to kiddos, why should games be any different?  I'd like to think that SCOTUS shoots it down, but I have no reason to think that they can or will.

Somebody should ask Arnie if he would ban children from renting Predator, Terminators 1-3 or Commando.

I still think his argument is valid. Movies and comics may not be interactive, but the innocent children are still exposed to the material. Besides, the research on gaming as a catalyst for violence is mixed, and the stuff that shows an association obviously suffers from confirmation bias.

Again, it's really not reasonable to compare video games with other media that isn't at all interactive.  I agree with you that the any potential harm is negligible and irrelevant, but it's still a very different breed of animal.

[ehra]

It may be interactive in that you get to control if anyone actually gets killed, but it's still imaginary. I don't see why pushing a button and seeing a video game character kill another video game character would be much worse than imagining a murder described in a book and/or seeing one in a movie. It's not a perfect example (I'm using it simply because it has a degree of interactivity), but are choose your own adventure book potentially more traumatizing than your typical Goosebumps book?

edit: Or Dungeons and Dragons, which lacks the visual feedback games have but is far more free in how a person can choose to interact with the game's world.

[Vivace]

 I think those games should be burned! 

[orcus116]

I was in Dave and Busters the other day and I noticed a particular type of arcade game that never gets mentioned whenever the anti-video game brigade parades around. I've heard games like GTA referred to as "killing simulators" but what about stuff like this:



Granted the morality of both games are the same but when you're comparing using a control to, well, something that actually involves looking down the scope of a sniper rifle...

[El Barto]

The morality isn't the same.  Killing people on behalf of city, state or federal governments or Judeo-Christian religious institutions is not only bad-ass but morally okey-dokey.  

This does raise an interesting point, though.  Are any of the COD or MOA type games included in this?  Does The Man take similar exception to kiddos learning to blow Akmed's brains out?  That's a valuable recruitment aid.  How about shooting down Godless commies piloting MIG-29s?  It seems like there's quite a bit of good ole, patriotic American style violence they're going to have to crack down on as well.  

And for that matter, what category does a Barron of Hell fit into?  


Edit:  Looks like they've written it as a modification of the Miller test:

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case last April. The law, according to court documents, seeks to "prohibit the sale of violent video games to minors under 18 where a reasonable person would find that the violent content appeals to a deviant or morbid interest of minors, is patently offensive to prevailing community standards as to what is suitable for minors, and causes the game as a whole to lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors."

See full article from DailyFinance: https://srph.it/aR3bsp

So yeah, killing Muslims and Commies will be A-OK.  How clever of them.

[ehra]

Hell, the ban would apply to America's Army which is developed by the US Army.

[XJDenton]

To be honest I don't see the issue with violent games being restricted to the sale of adults. My issue with the law is that I don't think it should be applied exclusively to games if it is implemented.

[Nigerius Rex]

Barto, how can you say that a video game is more "interactive" than a book and as such somehow more likely to translate into real world harm? Both strain someone physically the same, and I am of the belief that a book can engage you much more intensely than a video game although the specifics would be complicated by many factors.

[El Barto]

Barto, how can you say that a video game is more "interactive" than a book and as such somehow more likely to translate into real world harm? Both strain someone physically the same, and I am of the belief that a book can engage you much more intensely than a video game although the specifics would be complicated by many factors.

I said no such thing.  I said that I think games are certainly more interactive.  And in my case, as one who doesn't read,  they're also much more engaging.  However, I was pretty clear that any potential harm is insignificant and irrelevant.  I merely pointed out the difference in interactivity as the flaw in that ass-hat Scalia's reasoning.   

[Nigerius Rex]

If there is no measurable harm then how is there a flaw in his reasoning?

[El Barto]

After re-reading it, Scalia was only expanding on Ginsberg's answer.  I shouldn't have singled him out--I just think he's a dick. 

Both of them are drawing comparisons between video games and books, film, and fairy tales.  I think there's a big distinction between the two groups. 

[Genowyn]

Have children ever been allowed to purchase M rated games? They're not supposed to be, so I'm not sure what the big deal is.

[Ħ]

For once, I have to agree with El Barto.

Also, isn't there a correlation between violence in video games and school shootings?

[El Barto]

For once, I have to agree with El Barto.

Also, isn't there a correlation between violence in video games and school shootings?

Are you sure?  I think the proposed ban is bullshit for a variety of reasons.

And I don't see any possible way that a correlation could be demonstrated.  I don't think violent media causes people to act violently, and it wouldn't bother me even if it did, but there really isn't any way to link the two. 

[Ħ]

I meant that I agree with your assessment that video games are a completely different type of media than books, movies, etc., and should therefore be dealt with on a different basis.  I don't agree with the ban, but I don't think that if it were to fall through, that it would lead to a slippery slope where the government starts banning other sorts of media.

[William Wallace]

After re-reading it, Scalia was only expanding on Ginsberg's answer.  I shouldn't have singled him out--I just think he's a dick. 

Both of them are drawing comparisons between video games and books, film, and fairy tales.  I think there's a big distinction between the two groups. 

I don't think you've demonstrated that there's a major difference.

[El Barto]

After re-reading it, Scalia was only expanding on Ginsberg's answer.  I shouldn't have singled him out--I just think he's a dick. 

Both of them are drawing comparisons between video games and books, film, and fairy tales.  I think there's a big distinction between the two groups. 

I don't think you've demonstrated that there's a major difference.

I don't get how you could not see the difference.  Books and movies aren't controlled by the viewer/reader.  The player dictates the course of action in a video game.  He's making a representation of himself kill people (in the games in question).  Again, I'm fine and dandy with all manner of simulated violence, I just think that it's a far cry from reading about somebody doing the same thing.  I don't personally think that it'd be any more likely to cause a sane person to go on a kill-crazy rampage, but it would be foolish to not recognize that it's not the same thing. 

[William Wallace]

After re-reading it, Scalia was only expanding on Ginsberg's answer.  I shouldn't have singled him out--I just think he's a dick. 

Both of them are drawing comparisons between video games and books, film, and fairy tales.  I think there's a big distinction between the two groups. 

I don't think you've demonstrated that there's a major difference.

I don't get how you could not see the difference.  Books and movies aren't controlled by the viewer/reader.  The player dictates the course of action in a video game.  He's making a representation of himself kill people (in the games in question).  Again, I'm fine and dandy with all manner of simulated violence, I just think that it's a far cry from reading about somebody doing the same thing.  I don't personally think that it'd be any more likely to cause a sane person to go on a kill-crazy rampage, but it would be foolish to not recognize that it's not the same thing. 

I understand that difference, but I don't think it's enough to invalidate Scalia's analogy. Is there any drastic difference in how a game impacts a player compared to a book or movie? That's what I'm getting at.

[Portrucci]

Games aren't that influential...I mean If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.

[Implode]

Also, isn't there a correlation between violence in video games and school shootings?

I don't think so. It's more likely a confounding variable. Violent kids may just be attracted to more violent games. If your statement were true, we'd have way more video game related shootings given how many kids play violent video games.

[William Wallace]

Also, isn't there a correlation between violence in video games and school shootings?

I don't think so. It's more likely a confounding variable. Violent kids may just be attracted to more violent games. If your statement were true, we'd have way more video game related shootings given how many kids play violent video games.

Yeah, there's literally no link between violent crime and violent video gaming; violent crime has actually decreased some in recent years.

[Fiery Winds]

Have children ever been allowed to purchase M rated games? They're not supposed to be, so I'm not sure what the big deal is.

As far as I know, the rating system implemented by ESRB is completely self-regulated and as such, it is legal to buy any game at any age.  However, store policy is to restrict the sale of games to those under 17 and stores can get in trouble with the ESRB if they don't card.

[eric42434224]

Games aren't that influential...I mean If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.

Isnt that called a "Rave"?

[Sigz]

Games aren't that influential...I mean If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.

Isnt that called a "Rave"?

That's the joke.

[eric42434224]

Games aren't that influential...I mean If Pac-Man had affected us as kids, we'd all be running around in darkened rooms, munching pills and listening to repetitive electronic music.

Isnt that called a "Rave"?

That's the joke.

It's early and I havent had my coffee

[skydivingninja]

This is what the Best Buy I usually go to does.  They ask for ID when purchasing an M game.  If they aren't over 17 and don't have a parent with them, they say no.  I've never seen an EB/Gamestop do this.  I think that's perfectly acceptable, like keeping kids out of R movies.  Like that article says, its mostly a parenting issue, and they're the ones who really need to be paying attention to this, not the State.

[El Barto]

The more I think about this, the more trouble I have with the editorialization of the whole thing.  The people who always want to determine what others should watch/read/listen to/play are always the people with the worst judgment.  It baffles me that people who rate movies decide that T&A gets an R rating, humping gets NC17, and 110 minutes of mayhem and carnage is PG13.  These are the people who will decide who it is and isn't OK to virtually kill.  I mentioned earlier that the law is worded so that killing Muslims in CoD will be hunky-dory (prevailing community standards).  Medal of Honor ran into trouble when it was announced that one could play as either side--yes, that means the Taliban.  They reworked the game after [absolutely ridiculous] public outcry.  While the uproar was silly, I don't generally mind when the public seeks to influence such things.  I have a big problem when such things are suggested to become law,  and this is exactly the sort of thing that the law will be passing judgment on.  Virtual violence is fine as long as you're on the American side, and unacceptable if you're on the other.  That's bullshit.

[William Wallace]

The more I think about this, the more trouble I have with the editorialization of the whole thing.  The people who always want to determine what others should watch/read/listen to/play are always the people with the worst judgment.  It baffles me that people who rate movies decide that T&A gets an R rating, humping gets NC17, and 110 minutes of mayhem and carnage is PG13.  These are the people who will decide who it is and isn't OK to virtually kill.  I mentioned earlier that the law is worded so that killing Muslims in CoD will be hunky-dory (prevailing community standards).  Medal of Honor ran into trouble when it was announced that one could play as either side--yes, that means the Taliban.  They reworked the game after [absolutely ridiculous] public outcry.  While the uproar was silly, I don't generally mind when the public seeks to influence such things.  I have a big problem when such things are suggested to become law,  and this is exactly the sort of thing that the law will be passing judgment on.  Virtual violence is fine as long as you're on the American side, and unacceptable if you're on the other.  That's bullshit.

Why do you hate your country?