Supreme Court on Video Game Violence

[Shiva Indis]

EMA v. Schwarzenegger, the violent video games case set to go before the US Supreme Court, was back in the news recently. The 'friend of the court' filing window just passed, and arguments are coming up in a couple of months. Anybody following it? Anybody concerned about it?

[Nobiyuki77]

I'm not too concerned to be honest. I think it will be ruled unconstitutional and be done with it.

However, I don't see what the big fuss is about. I'll go on a limb here and say I agree with this, for the same reason I agree with R rated movies are illegal to sell tickets for to minors without a Parent/Legal Guardian present.

EDIT: Well, actually, no. Rereading it I'd agree with it if it were simply limited to M rated games. Apparently it's games California deems too excessive.

I disagree again.

[Werefrog]

Hmm... I don't really care for many of the decisions that the current supreme court has made. Isn't there precedent of state governments not being able to abridge first amendment rights (according to Wiki Gitlow v. New York)? I am sure there's some exception that I am unaware of , but this seems blatantly unconstitutional. Sorta like how Indiana state law requires a moment of silence after the pledge of allegiance, unconstitutional but no one seems to care.

Edit: I have to say that I am not really concerned with the outcome regardless. Like Nobi said, don't similar laws already exist for movies? The only issue I have with the law is that it's not up to the states to determine what is excessive and should be censored. Free speech is not absolute. We regulate the sales of violent movies why not video games? What about our medium of art makes it immune from the same regulations. Yes, I agree that video games are art, but you know, certain art should not be available to everyone in the same way that we don't allow students to learn how to build an atomic bomb.

Granted, age is a fairly crude measuring stick for maturity, but it's the best one we have.

[Shiva Indis]

The key problem with the law, as I think you're aware, is that it doesn't objectively define "violent video game." I wouldn't be surprised if this was an implicit dismissal of the rating system we currently have - the ESRB is, after all, in cahoots with the game developers who want to destroy the minds of American youth.

I'm not opposed to setting up a legal a barrier against children playing violent games. As much as I want to give kids the benefit of the doubt, copycatting happens, and the things we experience do effect our mentalities. Of course, the law needs to be more sensible than this one.

The thing that bothers me the most is that the case seems so cut-and-dry, yet the Supreme Court agreed to hear it. Every court that's heard this case said the law was unconstitutionally vague. Why not leave it at that?