Court: Why the First Amendment protects violent video games

[garbon]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/yblog_exclusive/20110627/pl_yblog_exclusive/why-the-supreme-court-says-the-first-amendment-protects-violent-video-games

The U.S. Supreme Court today ruled that states cannot restrict the sale or rental of video games to minors, a decision that reinforces both the First Amendment protection for interactive games and the free expression rights of children.

The courts struck down a California law restricting preventing the sale to minors of games involving "killing, maiming, dismembering or sexually assaulting an image of a human being."

The Supreme Court acknowledged California's legitimate concern in protecting children, but said the First Amendment sets limits.

Protecting children "does not include a free-floating power to restrict the ideas to which children may be exposed," Justice Antonin Scalia wrote.

In reaching this decision, the Court reaffirmed core First Amendment principles, noting that the government cannot limit messages, ideas or content. There are narrow exceptions to freedom of speech involving obscenity or words that incite violence,  but new restrictions must have a historical basis and can't simply be imposed on emerging media.

The key points in today's decision:

    Entertainment is protected by the First Amendment:  The Court notes that although video games are primarily intended for entertainment, "we have long recognized that it is difficult to distinguish politics from entertainment, and dangerous to try."
    Sexual and violent content are viewed differently:  America has a long tradition of limiting depictions of sexual acts, the Court notes, but has never been as restrictive about violence.  "Certainly the books we give children to read — or read to them when they are younger — contain no shortage of gore," Scalia wrote.  "Grimm's Fairy Tales, for example, are grim indeed."
    States can't target emerging media:  As new technologies are invented, states cannot target them for restriction because of concern about the potential influence on children.  In this case, for example, the Court concluded that the interactive nature of video games did not warrant government action any more than a compelling book would.
    The science doesn't support censorship: The Supreme Court dismisses research that violence poses a threat to children, saying that it doesn't prove that violent video games cause children to act aggressively.
    Disgust alone can't justify limits: Justice Samuel Alito did some of his own research into video games and shared his findings with his colleagues.  "Justice Alito recounts all of these disgusting video games in order to disgust us — but disgust is not a valid basis for restricting expression," Scalia wrote.

Overall, the Supreme Court's ruling is a vibrant application of 219- year- old Constitutional principles to cutting edge technology. It asserts that any new forms of communication or media to come will be protected by the First Amendment to the same extent as newspapers, films and other more traditional predecessors.

"New categories of unprotected speech may not be added to the list (of free speech exceptions)

[Valmy]

Thank God this is not Canada.  Everybody who has a violent video game might be arrested for doing something that might lead to murder.

[The Brain]

USA! USA! USA!

[Iormlund]

USA! USA!

Emu'd. 

[The Brain]

Justice Samuel Alito did some of his own research into video games

Judgedr3dd says: fukcing pala
Judgedr3dd says: L2P N0B
Judgedr3dd says: u hav to pick up adds
Judgedr3dd has left the group.

[mongers]

Only in America.


Yeah, probably only in America. 

[dps]

Justice Samuel Alito did some of his own research into video games

Judgedr3dd says: fukcing pala
Judgedr3dd says: L2P N0B
Judgedr3dd says: u hav to pick up adds
Judgedr3dd has left the group.

Back in the early 70s, when the Supreme Court heard a lot of pronography cases, they ended up screening a lot of porn trying to come up with a standard to tell if something was obscene (and could be banned or restricted) or not (in which case it was protected expression).  Justice Blacknum (I think it was Blacknum) wouldn't attend because he was a free-speach absolutist (thought films were protected, even if obscene) but was personally offended by porn and didn't want to watch it.  Justice Douglas agree that films were protected even if obscene, but still showed up for the screenings because he enjoyed them.

[The Brain]

How much child porn did they look at?

[MadImmortalMan]

MSFT up 4% on this news. 

[Martinus]

Thank God this is not Canada.  Everybody who has a violent video game might be arrested for doing something that might lead to murder.

No, but it underlines your schizophrenic views about sex and violence, though.

[grumbler]

No, but it underlines your schizophrenic views about sex and violence, though.

It highlights the difference between his schizophrenic views about sex and violence and your schizophrenic views about sex and violence, for sure.

[Slargos]

It also highlights the difference between your highlighting and his highlighting.

[derspiess]

Great, now I have mental pictures of grumbler and Marty with highlights in their hair. 

[grumbler]

Great, now I have mental pictures of grumbler and Marty with highlights in their hair.

Sounds like U R gay. 

[garbon]

Great, now I have mental pictures of grumbler and Marty with highlights in their hair.

Sounds like U R gay. 

I was thinking about highlighters and was sad that nothing was highlighted.