Game censorship going to Supreme Court
(Visited 11980 times) Game talk
Apr 262010
California’s law prohibiting sales of violent video games to minors is going before the U.S. Supreme Court. This law was previously struck down by the appeals court on the grounds that the state didn’t produce enough evidence that games cause physical or psychological harm.
The same sort of law has been struck down in eight states based on free speech concerns from the courts. Were such a law to be upheld, videogames would be the only medium treated in this fashion — other censorship laws are based on sexual content, not violence.
Edit: SCOTUSBlog has more detail.
12 Responses to “Game censorship going to Supreme Court”
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.
It’s only the Video Game industry’s problem. Not enough money is donated to politics in Washington to make it a bad campaign decision to come out against a politician’s favorite whipping boy. Too many 60 year old white haired men and women out of touch with reality serve in our government. We can either donate more as an industry and force them to pay attention or wait twenty years for the fools to leave office as a whole.
Any type of law like this serves no purpose and is a double standard from the get go when compared to other forms of entertainment. How many tax payer dollars need to be wasted before politicians realize that it is a lost cause. You would think that eight strikes is enough to say you’re out. Unfortunately, that’s just not the case.
R rated and X rated movies also have restricted sales at the box office by violent content.
though i dont think there are any FINES for video stores to rent R and X rated films to under 17-18, i m not sure what this specific law said that would have it be so “contraversial”
time for video games publishers to play by same rules other in communications play by.
RB Hume, the film industry is self-regulated. An X rating is not a law, and there is no government board deciding what gets what rating.
I counted around 40 related bills proposed during the 2008/09 period. None passed.
[…] see Raph Koster and […]
[…] see Raph Koster and VentureBeat. Possibly related posts: (automatically generated)Game dev books for 10 year […]
Only further’s my point. I was lazily using Raph’s numbers to make my point. I’ve been following the issue on Ars Technica for a number of years now to the point where they’ve stopped writing articles about every new bill.
I stand by my assertion that it is because the industry hasn’t figured out what the software industry did in the late 1990s. Government started making software company’s lives difficult starting with the anti-trust lawsuits and fines for Intel and Microsoft. Immediately following this, donations and campaign contributions spiked to all new highs and remained there. Politicians backed off because it no longer made financial sense to risk your own election to persecute another software company. A couple billion from the coffers of all the game companies through a very vocal PAC should do the trick.
Once again they’ve written a bill that’s too vague. I don’t see how this passes. No doubt to the chagrin of the anti-gun lobby, Greenpeace, and PETA.
Meanwhile, the gaming industry continues it’s backwards stance of no-rulz with a self(serving) ratings system sure to please The Headless Gamer.
True. However, there is a collage of vague and conflicting federal, state and local laws concerning material that is “obscene” and therefore denied first amendment protection. If you produce and distribute explicit material, you need a good lawyer in the wings if you don’t want to end up sitting in the Podunk County Jail for breaking some archaic blue law.
The California law may be overtly targeted at protecting minors, but if the State successfully argues that violent games fall under the legal definition of obscenity, that potentially gives them the authority to ban the games altogether (or restrict them into utter commercial invisibility).
Given the size of the California market, that’s potentially a huge chilling effect for free speech in the entire industry.
That would mean changing the definition of obscenity, which currently requires that obscene material be of a sexual nature. See the Miller test, which the Supreme Court would have to change for violence to legally be considered obscene.
Exactly. And that’s just what California tried to do in its arguments before the appeals court.
The Court has been reluctant to expand “obscenity” beyond purely sexual content. I’d hope to see that precedent stand. But the emotional appeal of “think of the children!” tends to put a weird, unpredictable spin on things.
I really don’t think something like that will pass but if it does…it would suck but thank god I don’t live there…
Wanted to give a shout out to Raph this be moeshere…really miss are metaplace…hope this finds you doing good and all is well..best wishes man…
moe..