California's bill restricting the sale of violent videogames overturned - by Ostriig
Ostriig on 27/6/2011 at 18:58
Don't you just love it when things work out? RPS reports that the Supreme Court of the US has ruled against the California state bill in Brown vs. Entertainment Merchants Association, overturning the decision to legally ban the sale of violent videogames to minors.
For those of you in need of a recap, or rather the cliffnotes of a recap since Meer does that more comprehensively in his report, while the ban itself was not necessarily something facing serious objections from the (adult) part of the gaming community, and indeed similar measures are in effect without opposition in other parts of the world, what made this initiative a horrible threat in the US is that videogames would've been classed the same as pornography as being the only two types of media under such a ban. Failure to overthrow California's ruling and its potential influence over legislation in other American states would've been a massive hit to the image and perceived artistic integrity of videogames as a medium, but also a serious threat to the commercial viability of the Mature-rated segment of the industry as many retailers would've likely stopped carrying such products. Today's contrary ruling of the Supreme Court, however, is a major victory for the industry and the gaming community, and the status and protection of the medium on the whole, as you might expect.
Quote:
Originally Posted by (http://www.rockpapershotgun.com/2011/06/27/supreme-court-videogames/) Alec Meer, RPSEnormously important news from the US just moments ago. Don your most gaudily-coloured party hat - after six long years, the Supreme Court has overturned a Californian ruling which banned the sale of games to minors... and essentially held that violent games were obscene publications.
In the case of Brown v. Entertainment Merchants Association, colloquially known as ‘the Schwarzenegger law' due to Herr Arnie's major role in bringing about a State-wide ban on the sale or rental of violent games to minors, the Supreme Court ruled 7 to 2 that the ban contravened the First Amendment, which concerns freedom of speech. Yep: games are now officially protected in the same way art and literature is. The entire games industry just breathed a sigh of relief.
[...]
It's worth reading (
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/10pdf/08-1448.pdf) the whole thing (warning: PDF), which is quietly very scathing of California's failed attempt to outlaw violent games, but the take-home message is this: after six years of trials, retrials and endless arguments and dis-ingenuity, games have now officially been accorded the same Constitutionally-protected status as movies, books, plays and all the rest.
I think I shall enjoy a glass of wine with my imminent dinner. Well, I was going to anyway but now I can be all smug about it.
Koki on 27/6/2011 at 19:48
Wow, it's... nothing!
Oh wait. They can finally release RapeLay in USA now then, right?
EvaUnit02 on 27/6/2011 at 21:16
Quote Posted by Koki
They can finally release RapeLay in USA now then, right?
ZymeAddict will be very pleased if they do
demagogue on 27/6/2011 at 23:42
You can still restrict AO games. This just applied to violent content.
Yeah what made this law bad was picking out games but not any other media with the same content.
That said I have noticed with my nephew that 4 year olds are incredibly suggestible. We were talking about a skiing trip and he just insists he wants to do the black diamond course because of wii ski and throws a fit if you even suggest he should try the kiddie hill first, which is "for babies" (never mind he can't even ski the kiddie hill in the game). Half of his image of reality is defined by Wii & DS games. But even this isn't really special to games I think. Parents just have to pay attention that kids are suggestible about certain things generally.
CCCToad on 28/6/2011 at 10:17
Quote:
Parents just have to pay attention that kids are suggestible about certain things generally.
Or, you know, actually expose them to reality instead of entertainment. One of the things that I hate about America(and love Colorado because its the opposite) is how unwilling most Americans are to get their asses off the couch. Most of the "bad influence" associated with media can be attributed to the fact that Americans consume so much entertainment that it drowns out any other influences.
Anyway, its a great ruling. Not because they were "picking games out" but because I am ideologically opposed to any substantial federal regulation of media. If Christian groups want to boycott a porn store? Go right for it. If a city council wants to forbid the sale of violent media and drive game stores to the next county? An asshole move but they're legally entitled and its ultimately inconsequential. When an entire state or the Feds get involved then it MAY negatively impact whatever speech or content is not politically correct at the moment, and its something I don't like.
Apply the veil of ignorance. If we deem violent games to be too offensive to sell one day, whats to stop us from deeming politically inflammatory games or games that feature drug use too offensive to sell ten years down the road?
Koki on 3/7/2011 at 16:14
I'll worry about that shit when it passes
And when I move to USA
