Schwarzenegger v. EMA Court and Petition: Video games and free speech under attack

[kipperthefrog]

http://gamepolitics.com/2010/05/12/eca-encourages-gamers-weigh-schwarzenegger-v-ema

 

Governor Schwarzenegger signed a bill that will make it illegal but the supreme court deemed it unconstitutional. They are now going to review the Schwarzenegger v. EMA to decide whether to outlaw selling M rated games to minors. The ECA have an online petition to urge the court to hold video games as free speech!

 

 

 

I already signed this. To stand up for your 1st amendment rights, sign this and spread the word!

[Arcesious]

Are you kidding me? Outlawing M-rated games to minors? No. Just no.

[Alexrd]

So, why do have any rate at all?

[kipperthefrog]

Are you kidding me? Outlawing M-rated games to minors? No. Just no.

 

im glad you agree. there is no evidence that violent games are harmfull. Fact: millions of kids play games that allow shooting in one form or another (including Star Wars and Indiana Jones) and only a handful of school shootings. Fact: the few that do school shootings have social and mental problems to begin with.

[Achilles]

Based solely on what I see here (and on the linked website), I don't see the connection.

 

Making it illegal to sell M games to kids is not impinging free speech. Game makers are still allowed to say whatever they want; they're just not allowed to market to whomever they want.

 

Trying to turn this into some sort of free speech issue only makes the pro-gaming lobby look like idiots.

[acdcfanbill]

Trying to turn this into some sort of free speech issue only makes the pro-gaming lobby look like idiots.

 

It clearly is a free speech issue as the courts have ruled many times that Speech doesn't apply simply to the spoken word, but to most forms of communication including games. Any business can set their own rules about what they wish to sell to their customers, but the government cannot dictate which members of society can receive what types of speech.

[Achilles]

It clearly is a free speech issue as the courts have ruled many times that Speech doesn't apply simply to the spoken word, but to most forms of communication including games.

Again, to the best of my knowledge, no one is saying that the game companies can't make what type(s) of games they want. So please help me understand how their free speech is being violated.

 

Any business can set their own rules about what they wish to sell to their customers, but the government cannot dictate which members of society can receive what types of speech.

Ooo, try this part again, but pretend we're talking about porn this time. Does the argument still work? Why or why not?

 

Hint: if your instinct is to say that porn is different, click here

[kipperthefrog]

They fear that if kids play games, they will imitate it in real life. by that logic, we might as well also rate Mario and need for speed "M" since he is shown kicking in punching in Mario 64 DS. We need to rate M for any game where we drive above the speed limit. everyone knows if a kid drives too fast in a video game, they are going to drive too fast in real life. Need for Speed needs to be kept from kiddies.

[acdcfanbill]

Again, to the best of my knowledge, no one is saying that the game companies can't make what type(s) of games they want. So please help me understand how their free speech is being violated.

 

It's not about those making free speech, it's about receiving said speech. Criminalizing the receipt of unpopular/'bad' speech is no better than criminalizing the production of it.

 

Ooo, try this part again, but pretend we're talking about porn this time.

 

My personal opinion on pornography is that anything non-exploitive should be fair game for anyone, but I believe the law is that you can't sell it to minors. It's the very crux of the issue to me, since films/music/books can be sold to minors until they are in the gray pornography area. For pornography obviously businesses can't set their own rules about selling to specific people if there are laws on the books superseding their rights. So while my statement was slightly overreaching, I think it still makes the appropriate point.

 

Other than pornography, which types of speech does the govt currently regulate? I feel they should regulate no speech at all, but I think Hate Speech is currently regulated as well.

[Achilles]

They fear that if kids play games, they will imitate it in real life. by that logic, we might as well also rate Mario and need for speed "M" since he is shown kicking in punching in Mario 64 DS. We need to rate M for any game where we drive above the speed limit. everyone knows if a kid drives too fast in a video game, they are going to drive too fast in real life. Need for Speed needs to be kept from kiddies.

 

 

It's not about those making free speech, it's about receiving said speech. Criminalizing the receipt of unpopular/'bad' speech is no better than criminalizing the production of it.

 

In response to the U.S. Supreme Court’s decision to review Schwarzenegger v. EMA —a California law that would make it illegal to sell violent videogames to children...

 

Emphasis mine. Please try again.

 

My personal opinion on pornography is that anything non-exploitive should be fair game for anyone, but I believe the law is that you can't sell it to minors. It's the very crux of the issue to me, since films/music/books can be sold to minors until they are in the gray pornography area. For pornography obviously businesses can't set their own rules about selling to specific people if there are laws on the books superseding their rights. So while my statement was slightly overreaching, I think it still makes the appropriate point.

 

Please go back and click the link I provided earlier.

 

Other than pornography, which types of speech does the govt currently regulate? I feel they should regulate no speech at all, but I think Hate Speech is currently regulated as well.

 

Great question. Let me know what you find.

[kipperthefrog]

• they worry that violence and shooting in games increases kid's aggression.
  
• Star Wars and Indiana Jones games has violence and shooting in them too.
  
• Star Wars and Indiana Jones games increases kid's aggression.
  
• therefore, Star Wars and Indiana Jones games should not be sold to kids either.
   
  so how come Star Wars and Indiana Jones don't get M too?
   
  Hint: if your instinct is to say that Star Wars and Indiana Jones games are different from other violent video games, click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading
  

[Totenkopf]

Meh, to me it's no big deal. Just like making it an offense to sell Playboy or other porn to a minor doesn't necessarily keep it out of their hands, neither will regulating who can buy an "M" rated game ultimately keep minors from playing them either. You already see that with booze and cigs. Can't sell em to minors, but they get their grubby little hands on them anyway.

[Achilles]

• they worry that violence and shooting in games increases kid's aggression.
  
• Star Wars and Indiana Jones games has violence and shooting in them too.
  
• Star Wars and Indiana Jones games increases kid's aggression.
  
• therefore, Star Wars and Indiana Jones games should not be sold to kids either.

 

so how come Star Wars and Indiana Jones don't get M too?

 

Answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

 

Your repeated argument is that the sole purpose of this type of legislation is...well, "they worry that violence and shooting in games increases kid's aggression."

 

I promise you that we all heard you the first three times. Perhaps the reason it isn't getting more traction is because not everyone is jumping to same set of conclusions that you are.

 

Hint: if your instinct is to say that Star Wars and Indiana Jones games are different from other violent video games, click http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special_pleading

My instinct is to point out that the rating boards seem to be able to distinguish between "cartoon violence" and "graphic violence". No special pleading necessary. But since I don't share your opinion that the entire case is hinged upon either, I don't think it's particularly relevant.

[acdcfanbill]

Emphasis mine. Please try again.

 

Try what again? I stated there is no distinction between giving/receiving speech, which I believe the constitution/courts agree with.

 

Please go back and click the link I provided earlier.

 

I read your link, but I fail to see its relevance. You inserted a strawman with pornography and then called me out on a logical fallacy.

[kipperthefrog]

Answer: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_premise

 

Your repeated argument is that the sole purpose of this type of legislation is...well, "they worry that violence and shooting in games increases kid's aggression."

 

that is their (anti video game types) argument against it. it is a true premise.

 

My instinct is to point out that the rating boards seem to be able to distinguish between "cartoon violence" and "graphic violence". No special pleading necessary. But since I don't share your opinion that the entire case is hinged upon either, I don't think it's particularly relevant.

 

it is still a depiction of violence. it still shows hitting and shooting that can be imitated. it also can increase adrenaline. how come they don't claim cartoon violence has the same effect?

[mimartin]

I fail to see the big deal as parents should be the ones making this decisions and not legislators or retailers. I have no problem with a law that restricts the sales of rated material to children as long as parents are allowed to make the final decisions. Now if the law says parents cannot purchase the game for their child, then I do have a problem with the law. Different kids have different reaction to different stimuli, parents and not the government should be the ones to make the decision for what is best for their child.

 

Face it children do not have the same rights as adults including the right to free speech, parents still have some control while children attempt to learn how become responsible enough to be able to cope with those freedoms.

 

One more thing, look at Joe the camel or the Marlboro Man to see where government has the right to stifle free speech.

[Achilles]

Try what again? I stated there is no distinction between giving/receiving speech, which I believe the constitution/courts agree with.

See Mimartin's post (or go back and see mine re: porn).

 

I read your link, but I fail to see its relevance. You inserted a strawman with pornography and then called me out on a logical fallacy.

When it comes to matters of law, there is a great deal of concern re: something called "precedent". If there is an established precedent with regards to something, then that carries a lot of weight in the eyes of the court.

 

So, you can "believe" that free speech is being impinged by making it illegal to sell M rated games to children (which may or may not be the case. Nothing in the OP or the OP's source is terribly specific about the facts of the case), however so long as there are established precedents (i.e. porn, tobacco, etc), then I don't see how there's anything to be gained here.

 

Especially since (as I've pointed out) no one's free speech is actually being limited.

 

that is their (anti video game types) argument against it. it is a true premise.

 

I love this game. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hasty_generalization

 

it is still a depiction of violence. it still shows hitting and shooting that can be imitated. it also can increase adrenaline. how come they don't claim cartoon violence has the same effect?

 

Great question. Perhaps it would be worthwhile to see what the actual facts of the case are rather than jump to conclusions or blindly accept the agenda of your source.

 

I'm all for signing online petitions (yes, including ones that involve BS moves made by idiot politicians against the gaming industry). I just tend to want to do my homework first and try to avoid getting swept away on someone's bandwagon.

[Darth Avlectus]

I'm of the opinion this ought to be left up to parental discretion, not the legislators. Unless parental discretion is failing on all fronts and it is actually causing adverse side effects, I don't see what the big deal is.

 

However, I have always wondered if over time a counterargument would be developed against that. That is to say that parental discretion is no longer viable somehow. This would need specific proof in several areas to support it.

 

I.E. Responsibility and trustworthiness, initiative and work ethic, school performance, general behavior and ethics, and obviously violent tendencies and attitudes.

 

While I suppose correlations could be made I have not seen much to suggest playing video games necessarily causes deficiencies in the areas I mentioned. Some kind of saying "Correlation isn't the same as Causation".

 

For fitness and obesity it definitely factors in more greatly here because obviously you're not doing much physical activity.

 

Hey, stores make policies of their own as well. I.E. K-Mart won't sell "M" rated games to minors at their discretion. I think Radio Shack is similar--hell they don't even sell laser pointers to anyone under 19, either. If I am not mistaken, even Hillary Clinton is big on heavier regulations for video games.

[Achilles]

I agree. one question: is it legal for parents to buy a playboy for their kid? If not, then whats to stop a politician from later saying that parents can't but M games for their kids? they will probably say it like a parent buying a playboy and beer for their kids. then it will be the government in charge not the parents.

 

Forgive me, but this still seems like a non sequitur. Per your own source, the law doesn't appear to do anything more than...

 

a California law that would make it illegal to sell violent videogames to children...

 

Nothing there about "making it illegal for adults to buy violent videogames then turn around and give them to kids".

 

As a parent, I see nothing wrong with this. I don't allow my kids to play M games so it would really piss me off to learn that they could circumvent me and purchase the games themselves.

[kipperthefrog]

oops, let me correct my spelling.

 

I agree. one question: is it legal for parents to buy a playboy for their kid? If not, then whats to stop a politician from later saying that parents can't buy M games for their kids? they will probably say a parent buying a M rated game is like a parent buying a playboy and beer for their kids. then it will be the government in charge of what parents can get for kids and not the parents.

[Achilles]

I agree. one question: is it legal for parents to buy a playboy for their kid?

 

I don't know. I'm not aware of any such law, but that doesn't mean that one doesn't exist. Also keep in mind that it might be considered a "states issue" which would mean that it could vary depending on which part of the country we're talking about.

 

If not, then whats to stop a politician from later saying that parents can't buy M games for their kids?

 

I don't know. But such a law seems like it would be impossible to enforce.

 

I don't mind addressing tangents, but please keep in mind that we've strayed very far from the original topic.

 

they will probably say a parent buying a M rated game is like a parent buying a playboy and beer for their kids. then it will be the government in charge of what parents can get for kids and not the parents.

 

Right. But this is all largely hypothetical as no one is suggesting that adults not be able to march into a store and buy whatever game they want for whatever purpose they choose. The gist of the legislation appears to be that children not have that same ability. So far as that goes, I agree with proponents. Just as much as I would agree with anyone that said that my 10 year old shouldn't be able to go into the store and blow his allowance on hookers and blow.

[Tommycat]

I agree. one question: is it legal for parents to buy a playboy for their kid?

As far as I know a parent can buy porn R rated movies, and any other adult thing for their children to use. They can allow the child to drink alcoholic beverages in their home.

 

The government already regulates a great deal of speech. Swearing is not allowed on over the air channels. Graphic violence(as opposed to cartoon violence) is not allowed on over the air channels. Nudity is not allowed on over the air channels.

 

Video games SHOULD be a regulated form of speech. While I may not have a problem with letting my child play a "violent" video game, I would prefer that it was my choice as a parent.

 

Also look at the recording industry. The SAME argument was made back then. Dee Snider even made a very impassioned speech about it, as well as John Denver.

[kipperthefrog]

Again,

Ooo, try this part again, but pretend we're talking about porn this time. Does the argument still work? Why or why not?

 

Hint: if your instinct is to say that porn is different, click here

 

one guy posted:

 

Funny that for all the talk about empowering parents to decide what is and is not appropriate for their children to consume, this law would do exactly the opposite.

 

"No rational justification exists for treating violent material so vastly different than sexual material under the First Amendment when reviewing restrictions on distribution to minors."

 

You're right. There's no reason to ban sexually explicit material to minors either.

http://gamepolitics.com/2010/07/12/california-submitting-arguments-schwarzenegger-v-ema-today

[Achilles]

one guy posted:

 

 

http://gamepolitics.com/2010/07/12/california-submitting-arguments-schwarzenegger-v-ema-today

Not sure if the person who posted that was taking the quote out of context.

 

California's law promotes parental authority to restrict unsupervised minors’ ability to consume a narrow category of material in order to protect minors’ physical and psychological welfare, as well as their ethical and moral development. California has a vital interest in supporting parental supervision over the amount of offensively violent material minors consume. The Act ensures that parents – who have primary responsibility for the well-being of minors – have an opportunity to involve themselves in deciding what level of video game violence is suitable for a particular minor.”

 

It is well-recognized that the societal values served by the freedom to consume expressive material do not justify recognizing a constitutional right for minors of the same magnitude as that for adults – and this should be true whether the expressive material is sexually explicit or offensively violent. Instead, while minors certainly enjoy the protection of the First Amendment, it is a more restricted right than that assured to adults, who may judge for themselves what level of sexually-explicit or violent material they should consume.

 

The First Amendment has never been understood as guaranteeing minors unfettered access to offensively violent material. Such material shares the same characteristics as other forms of unprotected speech, especially sexually explicit material. Throughout history, many states have enacted laws that regulate the sale of both sexual and violent material to minors. Such restrictions reflect society’s understanding that violent material can be just as harmful to the well-being of minors as sexually explicit material. This is further reflected in the fact that violence can strip constitutional protection from otherwise protected material. Sexually explicit material that would be otherwise protected for distribution to adults can be considered obscene given the violent nature of its depiction. No rational justification exists for treating violent material so vastly different than sexual material under the First Amendment when reviewing restrictions on distribution to minors.

 

It would seem to me that the person who posted that ignored every sentence that came before it (especially the 2nd paragraph). Obviously though I could be missing something.

[topshot]

I think the bill is itself a red herring and is useless at this point as it seems that it might not do much to enforce responsible parenting. Seems basically like they're trying to enforce some rules that were there before, which pretty puts government in control of how parents should foster their kids.

 

It also seems there's more states backing this petition, along with the questionable CSM and Eagles Forum .