As you may have caught wind of by now, if you follow gaming news at all, the US Supreme Court has ruled 7-2 that a California law which prohibited the sale of violent videogames to minors was in violation of the First Amendment. You can read the full opinion here, if you are so inclined, but I’d recommend checking out the first couple of pages of it at least.
This is pretty cool in and of itself, because it will hopefully put an end to the ridiculous laws that spring up in the US every now and then which try and stamp on videogames in one way or another. More importantly however, this is a ruling from the highest court in the land that videogames are as meritorious in the eyes of the law, and as deserving of protection, as older forms of art. This is hugely significant, not just because it lets us go “Nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah-nyah” at Ebert, but because between this and the recent decision by the National Endowment for the Arts (i.e. the Federal Government) that games are art, we’ve finally, finally reached a stage where the legal opinions have reached a point where they have caught up with reality.
This is significant even if you’re not in America, by the way. Because so many companies are American and because so much of the gaming market is in America, whatever rulings the US makes on a subject like this are going to have global ramifications. This kind of recognition and protection is not only precedent, but will have a tangible effect, as it will encourage other countries to follow suit, and will embolden the games markets in other countries to press for similar recognition and protection if it is not already forthcoming.
This is a good thing. If you think about it though, I think the implications that this issue even arose are more disturbing.
1. Parents are oblivious to what their children are being exposed to, or just plain don’t care. The responsibilty of this issue was trying to do is supposed to fall back onto the parents. Parents should be more proactive in monitoring what their children are doing and that includes what kinds of games they play. That’s why the ESRB ratings exist in the first place.
2. This sort of ties into the first point but most people are well aware that they are just playing a game and that none of it is real. However, you have people like Jack Thompson who try to pin horrible tragedies on video games simply because the person or persons involved may have played a game in the past. Most people know how to distinguish between reality and fantasy. Those who cannot generally tend to have deeper issues.
3. I think the intent of this is a bit misleading on a whole. This wasn’t about a state trying to censor certain games (unless I’m missing something) but it was the federal government stomping on a state government trying to control what people can and cannot do.
I actually have to disagree. Age-specific (key word) bans are appropriate, for the same reason age-specific bans on movies are appropriate; free speech applies to adults, not small children.
I think it’s great that video games are considered as art under free speech; they are just as much free speech as a movie, and just as entitled to that Constitutional protection.
On the other hand, very small children (as in, below high school age) should NOT be playing Grand Theft Auto, or Dead Space, or even Fable. Under the same principle that pre-teens cannot get into rated R movies, they should also be unable to purchase rated “M” games.
This is a part of a larger “just plop the kid in front front the TV and get them quiet” attitude that many parents can have, even when ANYthing could be on the TV! Exact same thing with video games.
The ratings are there on the box for a reason. I personally believe that this will get to be less of a problem in the coming years, because the current crop of new parents actually grew up with video games, violent and otherwise, so they won’t be such an unknown. Past generations of parents viewed video games as this sort of unknown thing; “oh yeah, like PAC-Man at the arcade”, and didn’t really click with what was going on. I think that in the near future, “Mario=good, Resident Evil=not so much for my pre-teen kid” will be something that comes naturally to most parents, and not such a new-fangled thing.
What I did find mildly troubling as I skimmed the Supreme Court decision was this line: “This country has no tradition of specially restricting children’s access to depictions of violence. (top pf page 2)
Well, gee, maybe we should. Not cartoon violence, but an 8-year old should not be viewing “Saving Private Ryan”. Nor, in my book, should they be mowing down cops and picking up hookers in GTA.
Have I mowed down cops and picked up hookers in GTA? Of course. But, by that time I was 18. Big difference.
@ Bamos: I don’t think that kids should necessarily have access to X, Y, or Z. But the last people on Earth I trust to decide what is and is not acceptable is the government. Yes, kids can’t go and see R-rated movies, but that’s because of the self-regulation in the movie industry and by theaters. The same holds true with games. The SCOTUS didn’t make it illegal to slap an M rating on a game, they didn’t tell GameStop they can’t sell games/must sell games to kids, all they said was that the government has no business deciding these things – it is up to the parents to decide what is and is not appropriate for their kids, based on their own beliefs and their own unique child.
Definitely agree here. Ultimately, it is up to the parents to decide what is and what is not appropriate for their child. If they feel their child is mature enough to see hordes of zombies ripping humans to shreds in Dawn of the Dead or mow down innocent bystanders in Liberty City, then more power to them. The systems are in place already, and in my opinion, they are working as intended. There is no need for further government regulation.
Like MA said, the last people I would trust to decide what is appropriate is the government. They can’t even agree on how to run a country properly.
@MA Huh, I guess I learned something today. I was under the impression that movie regulations and ratings were government-enforced at some FCC-ish level…but then I looked it up and the MPAA is a private organization, as is the ESRB. Same for the Comics Code; I had thought it was government enforced too, but it was private as well. I guess I was wrong about that.
I guess in that context it is more of a government intrusion. My bad.
I still think parents should be more aware of video games in general, but like I said, I think that will pass as the next generation grows up with video games.
@Bamos: Oh I absolutely, 100% agree that parents should be very deeply involved in such things and that the tools needed to make such decisions ought to be both plain and ubiquitous. But as you say, fortunately, we’re starting to get a generation now who are much better informed.
(no relation to the other Fig)
I think it’s worthwhile to compare the two dissents in the ruling. Justice Thomas’ dissent is what I would consider some sort of insane ramble on Puritans with the ultimate statement that folks under 18 don’t have free speech rights without parental consent. Terrible stuff, with almost zero connection to the constitution – where in the document does it state that minor’s rights are not valid? (hint: no mention, other than in the specific context of voting and eligibility for office)
Justice Breyer (probably as different a judge from Thomas as any on the court) had a dissent of a fairly different style. His basic interpretation is that, akin to bans on selling pornography to minors, it wouldn’t be against the first amendment to ban direct sales of video games to those under 18, which the industry itself says it wants to keep out of those under 18. If Thomas’ opinion had been the opinion of the court, this would have dire implications throughout all avenues of speech, whereas Breyer’s sub-optimal opinion wouldn’t really anger me *that* much due to being relatively moderate in scope. I’m glad the majority ruled the way it did (and I don’t know if it’s kudos to Scalia for this decision, or boo on him for the rest of his jurisprudence), but I’m also a fan of Breyer in general, so I’m almost trying to square a circle here.
Almost off to the side, the MPAA/ESRB can often be quite nutty in my mind (R rating for ‘I Capture the Castle’?!?!?!?! wtf? maybe 10 seconds of non-sexual nudity in a film that’s entirely PG-13 otherwise), and using these particular rating systems would be especially bad.